Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Eastbourne Extension Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third Time, and passed, with Amendments.

Newcastle-under-Lyme Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third Time, and passed, with Amendments.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Clevedon Water) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third Time To-morrow.

COATBRIDGE BURGH EXTENSION, ETC., ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Coatbridge Burgh Extension, etc.," presented by Mr. Elliot; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Edinburgh Corporation," presented by Mr. Elliot; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

MOTHERWELL AND WISHAW BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Motherwell and Wishaw Burgh," presented by Mr. Elliot; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 191.]

BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAI. ORDER BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the

Bournemouth Corporation Act, 1930, relating to Bournemouth Trolley Vehicles," presented by Captain Austin Hudson.

Ordered, That Standing Order 204 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the First Time.—[The Chairman. of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the First Time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 192.]

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT.

Mr. Whiteley: asked the Minister of Labour whether arrangements can be made, in the case of insured persons being compelled to leave one industry under the general insurance scheme to agriculture, to transfer the value of the contributions from one fund to the other to prevent the insured person being deprived of benefit should he become unemployed?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Butler): My right hon. Friend explained in the Debate on the Adjournment on 29th June last why arrangements of the kind suggested are impracticable. I should point out also that in the circumstances mentioned in the question a contributor who, when he became employed in agriculture was qualified for benefit under the general scheme would remain so qualified as long as he continued to satisfy the first statutory condition.

Mr. Whiteley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unless something is done +o prevent loss of contributions, it may prove a discouragement for men to transfer from one industry to another?

Mr. Butler: I realise that the question is difficult, but the technicalities are appreciated by the expert administrative bodies, and the Minister did his best to explain it on the Adjournment the other night.

TEAM VALLEY TRADING ESTATE.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Labour how many workpeople are now


employed in the factories on the Team Valley trading estate, and the nature of their occupations?

Mr. Butler: I am making inquiries and will let the hon. Member know the result.

Mr. Sexton: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed from each of the following Employment Exchanges, namely, Bishop Auckland, Shildon, Spennymore, Crook, Stanhope, Cockfield, and Middleton-in-Teesdale, who have obtained employment at the Team Valley Trading Estate?

Mr. Butler: The vacancies which have occurred on this estate up to the present are on constructional work and necessarily of a temporary nature, and they have been offered only to persons living within daily travelling distance. The hon. Member will therefore appreciate that no workpeople from the areas mentioned, the nearest of which is 25 miles from the estate, have so far been placed there.

Mr. Sexton: As the Commission on Palestine have recommended £2,000,000 for Transjordania, will the hon. Gentleman also recommend £2,000,000 for Transjordania in Durham?

Mr. Butler: We are aware of the position in South-West Durham, and I am sure that the Commissioner will take all possible steps to give every opportunity for work-people to find work in this area.

Mr. Sexton: Recognising that this is a trading estate, is it not folly not to use it for providing employment in South-West Durham, and will the hon. Gentleman represent to the Commissioner the desirability of getting a trading estate or at any rate a number of separate factories in South-West Durham, where unemployment is so acute?

Mr. Butler: I am sure the Commissioner is aware of the special needs of South-West Durham, but at the present time only work of a preliminary constructional nature can be undertaken.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Commissioner giving any attention at all to South-West Durham?

Mr. Butler: Yes.

Mr. Shinwell: Who is responsible for the employment of these men? Is it the

contractor who is responsible for the constructional work or those who are responsible for the administration of the trading estate?

Mr. Butler: I think the latter is the case, but I should like to investigate it and let the hon. Gentleman know.

POTATO PICKING, JERSEY.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Minister of Labour what numbers of men have been engaged through the medium of the Employment Exchanges for potato picking in Jersey during the present season; from what areas of Great Britain they have been mainly drawn; upon what terms the men are engaged; and what steps are taken by his Department to see that the terms of the engagement are observed by both parties?

Mr. Butler: The number of men engaged through the Employment Exchanges for agricultural work in Jersey during 1937 is approximately 2,100. The men were mainly drawn from the South Western and South Eastern counties of England. They were engaged on terms brought to their notice before acceptance of the work and embodied in contracts signed by them and their employers; a minimum scale of wages has been drawn up by the Jersey Farmers' Union. Officers of my Department are stationed in Jersey to facilitate the smooth working of the scheme and to help in any difficulties which may arise in carrying out the terms of the contract.

Mr. Leslie: What is the average wage per man in this work?

Mr. Butler: I think I could let the hon. Member have particulars of the average wage.

Mr. George Griffiths: Could the men who are out of employment and who go to Jersey to work have insurance stamps put on their cards while they are in Jersey?

Mr. Butler: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. Paling: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has made an investigation into the complaints made by a number of men who have been sent into Jersey for potato picking; and whether he has any statement to make about the matter?

Mr. Butler: I presume the reference is to two cases of which particulars were sent to me by the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn). A full reply is being sent to him, but I may say briefly that the investigation showed that these men had no substantial ground of complaint.

Mr. Paling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these complaints have come from a number of men up and down the country, and that the Minister admitted last week there were reasons for the complaints because it was rather a new venture? Is he also aware that these complaints have been going on for some years and that the troubles ought to have been found out before now?

Mr. Butler: My Department have special officers in Jersey to avoid any trouble of this sort and every effort is made to meet it. If the hon. Gentleman likes, I will, with the permission of the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn), communicate to him the facts of this case.

Mr. Paling: Is it not the case that when a dispute arises as to the area of ground picked, there are not sufficient officers sent by the Ministry of Labour to settle it, and that very often bad relations arise?

Mr. Butler: It is our aim to avoid bad relations.

Mr. Charles Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the men have done very well?

Mr. Lunn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that although there was a necessity for 3,000 potato pickers, only 2,100 applied for work of this character this year; and that conditions at some places are bad?

Mr. Butler: I would not like it to be said that the conditions are bad in Jersey—

Mr. Lunn: I did not say that.

Mr. Butler: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did not mean that. I am aware that there are certain difficulties which the officers of the Ministry do their best to avoid.

SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORK.

Major Carver: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the extreme difficulty experienced by farmers in obtaining suitable casual labour to assist them during the present hay harvest; and whether, in view of this, the situation can be treated as one of emergency by his Department?

Mr. Butler: I am aware that difficulty is found in obtaining a sufficient number of casual workers for seasonal agricultural work. The Employment Exchanges assist farmers by bringing vacancies to the notice of suitable persons who are available; where the number of local applicants is insufficient to meet employers' requirements, the vacancies are brought to the notice of persons in other districts. The situation is receiving the constant attention of local officers of my Department.

VOCATIONAL TRAINING.

Mr. G. Woods: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that cases have occurred of unemployed men being refused industrial training on account either of their age or the number of their children; and whether he will state the conditions laid down by his Department in this connection?

Mr. Butler: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to vocational training at Government training centres. The age limits for admission to these centres are normally 18–35, but men over 35 may be accepted if they are suitable and can be satisfactorily placed in employment on completion of their course. There is no bar to the acceptance for training of men with dependent children, but careful consideration is necessary to avoid accepting men whose family commitments are likely to prevent them from taking employment of the kind available and in the localities where it is available. Cases of men with more than three children are specially considered from this point of view before they are accepted for training.

Mr. Woods: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what is the method of approach of a man of 32 with five children who would like to receive this training when he has been definitely turned down?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, I hope he will draw it to my attention.

ASSISTANCE (ARMY PENSIONS).

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the whole of a long-service Army pension is taken into account by the Unemployment Assistance Board when assessing unemployment assistance; and whether he will advise the Board to modify this matter in the interest of such applicants?

Mr. Butler: I am informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that it is not the normal practice to take into account the whole of a pension of this kind. Allowance is made for personal requirements, the actual sum being determined at the discretion of the Board's officer according to the circumstances of the individual case. If the hon. Member has in mind any particular case that has given rise to difficulty, I shall be happy to communicate it to the Board.

Mr. Smith: Is the hon. Member aware that I have in my hand the case of a man who has had 24 years' service in the Army and who is drawing a pension of 24s. a week, every penny of which is taken into account by the Unemployment Assistance Board? If I promise to send this information on, I hope the hon. Member will look into it.

LONDON HOTELS (EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS).

Mr. Kelly: asked the Minister of Labour the conditions of wages and working for the men, women, and young persons employed in the hotels in London, particularly those in the Park Lane area and the Strand; and whether the Employment Exchange in Denmark Street, London, engages in placing people in employment at the Grosvenor House, Park Lane, and Savoy Hotels?

Mr. Butler: I am not in a position to give the particulars asked for in the first part of this question. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. Kelly: In view of the answer to the second part of the question and the placing of people in employment at these particular hotels in London, is the

Employment Exchange aware of the conditions to which it is sending these people when placing them in employment there?

Mr. Butler: I should have to make inquiries, but I presume the exchange is aware of all these matters.

Mr. Kelly: Will the hon. Gentleman conduct an investigation into this matter in order to find out whether 7s. 6d. to 175. a week is an adequate wage for a man at these swagger hotels?

CINEMA WORKERS' CONDITIONS (INQUIRY).

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour particulars of the inquiries he proposes to institute into the conditions of employment of persons engaged either as operators or attendants at cinema theatres; and whether he will consider appointing a Departmental Committee to make a comprehensive investigation into such conditions?

Mr. Butler: The Department proposes in the first instance to ask proprietors of cinematograph theatres to furnish particulars to my Department, on forms to be provided for the purpose, of the wages and working hours of the workpeople in their employment in a specified week. When these inquiries have been completed, my right hon. Friend will consider whether further investigation is required.

Mr. Day: In view of the fact that the Minister has had instances of cases where people have to work nearly 80 hours per week for 25s. or 275. 6d. a week, does he not think it is nearly time that this inquiry was held?

Mr. Butler: That is precisely why my right hon. Friend is holding the inquiry.

Mr. Day: Did not the Minister promise this House to hold an immediate inquiry himself?

HOURS OF WORK CONVENTION.

Mr. Adamson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has given consideration to any proposals from the International Office for special provisions for a limitation of working hours in backward countries; and whether he can make any statement on the matter?

Mr. Butler: It was found to be impossible to get sufficient support for the insertion in the Textile Forty-Hour Draft Convention a clause prescribing a 48-hour week for countries with particular climatic conditions, imperfect development of industrial organisation, or other special circumstances, and the Conference, therefore, adopted a resolution requesting the Governing Body to consider placing on the agenda of a future Conference the question of adopting a special draft convention for such countries. This resolution will be considered by the Governing Body in due course.

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION ACTS.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many local authorities have made by-laws under the Advertisements Regulation Acts; whether these bylaws follow the same general lines; what is the system adopted for their enforcement; and how many local authorities have not made any such by-laws;
(2) whether he is aware that in many places, notably along the main approaches to towns, houses and scenery are disfigured by unsightly advertisements; whether he can and will approach local authorities in order to bring about more complete and continuous enforcement of existing by-laws designed to prevent such disfigurement; and whether he will consider such amendment of the Advertisements Regulation Acts as would prevent undesirable forms of advertisement which may prove to be still legal;
(3) whether the agreement concluded in 1924 between certain commercial companies to refrain from exhibiting advertisements in places where they might conflict with the amenities of their surroundings is still in force; if so, what companies are a party to it; and whether steps can be taken to secure the adherence of all companies which make a practice of advertisement by poster?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): By-laws applying to rural districts and to urban districts with a population of less than 10,000 have been made by all the county councils in England and Wales; 86 out of 372 boroughs and 56 of the 305 urban districts the population of which exceeds

10,000 and which are therefore by-law making authorities, have also made by-laws under the Acts. These by-laws have been framed on the lines of model forms prepared by the Home Office. Proceedings for breach of the by-laws can be taken by anyone who sees fit to do so, but in practice it generally falls to the local authority which made them to take steps for their enforcement. A county council can if it so wishes delegate to the councils of urban districts to which its by-laws apply and to the councils of the rural districts in the county the powers of the county council in regard to enforcement. The agreement of 1924 to which my hon. Friend refers was a voluntary arrangement concluded between four large petrol companies for the withdrawal of competitive advertisements from roadsides in rural areas, and, so far as I know, is still being observed. I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's desire to prevent disfigurement of the countryside by advertisements, and I will do what I can to help to promote this object. The methods by which it can be secured need careful consideration, and I shall be very glad to receive my hon. Friend's suggestions if he will get into touch with me.

Mr. Nicholson: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his encouraging answer, may I ask him whether, if some general measure of agreement can be obtained, the Home Office will introduce a Bill or give support and encouragement to a private Member's Bill that might be introduced to implement such an agreement?

Sir S. Hoare: I think that I have shown by my answer that I am very sympathetic to both those two contingencies.

Mr. Thurtle: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the only effective way of getting rid of these unsightly advertisements is to get rid of the competitive capitalist system?

Mr. Sandys: Can my right hon. Friend say whether his powers extend to preventing the disfigurement not only of scenery, but of the sky by aeroplane advertising; and, if not, will be consider that aspect of the question?

Sir S. Hoare: I am not sure whether the air comes within the cognisance of the Home Office.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a conference is sitting of the various associations of local authorities and the Scapa Society to consider this matter and to see what can be done, and will he give sympathetic consideration to their findings?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, I shall certainly be very interested in the findings, and I will give the most sympathetic consideration to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR CAR DRIVERS (DRUNKENNESS CHARGE).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Home Secretary whether any and what instructions are given to police authorities as to the right to examination by an independent doctor of a man detained on a charge of driving a motor car while under the influence of drink?

Sir S. Hoare: All police forces have instructions that if a prisoner in custody on a charge involving drunkenness desires to be examined by a doctor selected by himself, the request is to be complied with, on the understanding that the prisoner will be responsible for the doctor's fee.

Sir J. Mellor: Is the prisoner informed of his right to this examination at the time it is decided to send for the police surgeon, and will my right hon. Friend agree that it is most important that, if possible, an independent doctor should be present at the time of the examination by the police surgeon?

Sir S. Hoare: I am not sure whether that is the case or not. I think that I had better have notice of the question.

MOTOR LORRIES (GUARD-RAILS).

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the Minister of Transport when the regulations, promised by the late Minister of Transport 12 months ago, enforcing the provision of guard-rails between the front and rear wheels of motor lorries, will become operative?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): This question is still under consideration by the Transport Advisory Council.

Mr. Green: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 12 months have elapsed and that four times a similar answer has been given, and in the interval four fatal accidents have occurred in the neighbourhood of my constituency resulting from the absence of guard rails? Does he not think that these circumstances warrant some greater expedition?

Mr. Burgin: In these matters it is very necessary to have expert advice. On 6th March, 1937, notice of intention was given to consider whether regulations should be made, and I am awaiting the reply of the Advisory Council as to details?

Mr. Green: Will the Minister hurry up a decision? When are we likely to have it?

Mr. Burgin: I will make inquiries and do what I can to expedite it.

Mr. Watkins: Was it not four years ago that the Minister of Transport promised to consider the question, and still no answer is forthcoming?

BAKERLOO RAILWAY (STANMORE SERVICE).

Sir Reginald Blair: asked the Minister of Transport at what approximate date will the works now in progress joining the Bakerloo tube with the Stan-more Metropolitan line be completed?

Mr. Burgin: I am informed by the London Passenger Transport Board that it is hoped that the Bakerloo line service to Stanmore will be put into operation in the spring of 1939.

Sir R. Blair: Does the long delay mean that there can be no uniformity of fares until that date?

Mr. Burgin: We cannot, of course, deal with this new railway service before the railway itself is built. The scheme referred to is one of those scheduled in the recent Act and involves a great deal of new construction. It means that the service will not be in operation until the date I have given.

Sir R. Blair: Does that mean that uniformity of fares at those two stations will be delayed?

Mr. Burgin: That is another matter.

RAILWAYS (SAFETY REQUIREMENTS).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the official finding that the cause of the derailment of a London and North Eastern Railway Company's express train, at Langrick, on 8th March, was due to decayed track sleepers and that serious misjudgment of the remaining strength of the permanent way had been made, he can give an assurance that the additional strain of fast traffic is now fully met as regards track equipment and other safety requirements upon the railways of the Kingdom?

Mr. Burgin: The responsibility for operation and for maintenance of their lines rests solely with the railway companies, and I am satisfied that they are fully alive to all the safety requirements of fast traffic.

Mr. Adams: Has the Minister made any representations to the various railway companies on the matter?

Mr. Burgin: The report on the accident has been published and the matter has been made clear to the railway companies.

FILMS (CENSORSHIP).

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to set up a committee to inquire into the present censorship of films?

Sir S. Hoare: I do not contemplate the appointment of any committee of inquiry, but if the hon. Member refers to the changes which it is proposed to make in the composition and terms of reference of the Advisory Committee referred to in the answer which I gave to his question of 3rd June, the position is that the necessary steps are being taken for the selection of the members of this committee, but I am not yet in a position to make a further announcement on the subject.

Mr. Day: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the manner in which the censorship of films operates?

Sir S. Hoare: I have not any reason to think that it is not working well, and if the hon. Gentleman has any criticisms to make, perhaps he will let me have them.

FIRE BRIGADE SERVICE (PENSION RIGHTS).

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a recent ruling in the Chancery Division in the case of Fire Brigades Union v. Billingham-on-Tees, that firemen doing ambulance and other duties are not wholly and permanently employed on fire-brigade duties; and, in view of the anxiety of many firemen that this ruling may affect their pension rights under the Fire Brigades Pensions Act, 1925, will he make an early statement on the position?

Sir S. Hoare: I have obtained a transcript of the judgment referred to, from which it appears that the decision was based on the particular circumstances of the individual case. I am advised that its application to other fire brigades depends upon the local conditions of service, but in view of the importance of the general issues raised, I propose to take an early opportunity of considering them in consultation with representatives of the local authorities and of the fire service.

PROGRAMME PIRATING.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that at the Festival of Youth in aid of King George's Jubilee Trust at Wembley, on Saturday last, large numbers of unofficial, incomplete, and inaccurate programmes bearing the imprint "Victor, London," were sold outside the entrances to the Stadium to the detriment of the funds of the Trust; and whether the police can be instructed to stop fraudulent practices of this kind?

Sir S. Hoare: I have ascertained that on the occasion in question a programme drawn up by the authorities of the Wembley Stadium was on sale in the Stadium, and that other types of programmes were offered for sale in the neighbouring streets. Action is taken by the police in these cases when there is sufficient evidence to justify a charge of attempting to obtain money by false pretences, and, as my hon. Friend will be aware, two such charges were in fact preferred in connection with the function concerned. Where the sale of unofficial programmes results in the diversion of proceeds which would otherwise be devoted to a charitable object, I fully share my hon. Friend's view that such sales


are to be deprecated, but I have no power to impose a general prohibition on sales of programmes which have not been produced by the organisers of the event concerned.

Mr. Keeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that displays such as this in aid of a charity depend for revenue very largely on the sale of programmes, and will he consider sympathetically a private Bill to stop pirating of programmes?

Sir S. Hoare: While I sympathise with the object that my hon. Friend has in mind, from the information I have at present I would be inclined to think that legislation is not necessary; but I am prepared to consider any representations that my hon. Friend might make to me on the subject.

Sir Joseph Lamb: In view of the fact that this is a palpable fraud on the organisations arranging these functions and on the public, will not my right hon. Friend take power to prevent it?

Mr. Chorlton: Is not the loss so great by the pirating of programmes that some definite action should be taken to protect the charities that are suffering from it?

Sir S. Hoare: I am not sure whether that is so. As I say, from my present information, I do not think legislation is necessary, but I am prepared to consider any representations.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that this pirating happens at almost every sporting event in the country, and is it not in the power of the local authorities to prevent it if they desire to do so?

Sir S. Hoare: I think that the local authorities have powers of some kind, but it is clear that where money is obtained under false pretences prosecution can ensue.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not this another example of private enterprise?

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES.

Mr. Ammon: asked the Home Sectary what were the grounds for refusing the request of the London County Council for a public inquiry into the general conduct of employment agencies?

Sir S. Hoare: This suggestion was very carefully considered, and a deputation was received by my predecessor from the London County Council. Powers for the regulation of these agencies have been given to local authorities by a number of private Acts, and inquiry was made by the Home Office of all the local authorities concerned, but there was no evidence that complaints of abuses of the kind mentioned by the London County Council had arisen in towns outside London, and it was, therefore, considered that any public inquiry which might be thought desirable could properly be held by the Council, and that no case had been made out for a wider inquiry to be initiated by the Government.

Mr. Ammon: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would have been more courteous if, in replying to a body like the London County Council, he had given the reason, rather than simply turn down the suggestion without any reason at all?

Sir S. Hoare: I think the London County Council have been told the reason for our decision, and if they have not been told I have given the reason to-day, and I think it is a very good one.

Mr. Day: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many applicants to these employment agencies are imposed upon in many ways, and will he not consider setting up a Departmental Committee?

Sir S. Hoare: We made inquiries, and they went to show that practically the only complaints which had been made were concerned with London. On that account we thought that if there was to be an inquiry, it should be one held by the London County Council.

Mr. Ammon: Is it not the case that so many complaints arise in London because of the larger number of cases there, particularly in regards to domestic servants?

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been complaints in great towns in the provinces, and that that is really where the trouble arises, because it is there they get the domestic servants for London?

Sir S. Hoare: No; we made inquiries and there have been practically no complaints from there.

Sir J. Lamb: Is it not the case that though there may not have been complaints, these cases are still arising in the provinces?

PRISON OFFICERS AND POLICE (PAY).

Colonel Nathan: asked the Home Secretary whether he will give, for purposes of comparison, the maximum and minimum pay rates of men prison officers and the corresponding figures for women police constables in the London Metropolitan police; and the weekly pay in each case after 12 years efficient and approved service?

Sir S. Hoare: Under the existing scale of pay, men officers in the prison service start at 50s. weekly rising to 70s. weekly after 12 years. Women police constables start at 56s. weekly and rise to 80s. in 12 years, but their pay is subject throughout to a deduction of 5 per cent. towards pension. For comparative purposes it is necessary to take into account that while a woman police constable receives a rent allowance of 6s. a week, which is not pensionable, a prison officer receives free quarters or an allowance in lieu, which in London may amount to 20s. a week and part of which is pensionable.

SHOP WINDOW ARTICLES (SALE).

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that many traders display articles in windows marked at a certain price but refuse to sell those articles at the price marked; whether he will take steps to amend the law which now enables shopkeepers to indulge in this virtually fraudulent practice; and, seeing that police officers are repeatedly called in by customers seeking redress against shopkeepers who refuse to hand over their merchandise at the price marked, will he give the police in future powers to intervene?

Sir S. Hoare: My attention has not previously been drawn to this matter. On the information given by my hon. Friend it would appear questionable whether the police should be called upon to intervene in disputes of this kind; but if he will supply me with details of any particular cases which he has in mind, I shall be glad to consider them.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that this practice has become a scandal, both in London and the provinces, and that respectable shopkeepers as well as the public resent it, and will he not get into touch with the Attorney-General in order to have the law amended so that those who are responsible for this practice shall be prosecuted?

Mr. Jagger: Will the hon. Member recommend them to go to the "Co-op," where it never happens?

Mr. Holdsworth: Is not the remedy in the hands of the public—to boycott these shops? Would not that be better than giving any further power of restriction?

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the allegation contained in this question an insult to the shopkeeping fraternity?

Mr. Kelly: Is not this what was done by the Government at the last election?

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.

Mr. Kelly: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that an appeal, dated 17th January, 1936, prepared by a prisoner named Wicks at Wormwood Scrubs Prison, for the purpose of an application being made to the Registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to give evidence and to call other evidence at the hearing of his appeal, was held away from the solicitors until 31st January, 1936; who was responsible for this action; and in whose possession was the document between the 17th and 31st January, 1936?

Sir S. Hoare: The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed. I find on inquiry that on 17th January, 1936, the prisoner in question was supplied with paper for the purpose of preparing a statement for his solicitors, and on the 19th was supplied with further sheets for the same purpose. The statement was not completed until 26th January, and after examination was posted with a covering letter written by him to his solicitors on 30th January.

Mr. Kelly: In view of the fact that this procedure destroyed any chance of the man proving his innocence—by reason of the date—why was this held up from the 26th to the 30th? Where was it? Who had it?

Sir S. Hoare: I do not think there was any undue delay at all. A very small delay was due to the fact that the representation had to be checked in one or two directions to see whether it was in order, but there was nothing abnormal in this procedure, nor was there any undue delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

MATERIALS (PRICES).

Mr. McEntee: asked the Minister of Health whether he can give figures for England and Wales showing the percentage rise in the prices of the materials used in the construction of working-class houses, the percentage rise in the wages of building trade workers, and the percentage increase in tenders for this class of house for one year to the latest possible date?

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): The estimated percentage rise in the prices of materials used in the construction of a working-class house for the three months ended 31st March last as compared with a similar period a year previous is 7·0. The estimated percentage rise in the cost of labour used in a working-class house over the same periods is 2.8. The percentage increase on the average tender price of a non-parlour working-class house over the same period is 8.7.

Mr. McEntee: In view of the disparity between the rise in materials and wages on the one hand and the rise in prices for houses, will the Minister take action to prevent a rise in prices over and above the rise in wages and materials?

Sir K. Wood: Possibly the hon. Member will recollect that I dealt with this matter on the Estimates for my Department.

Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that the rise in England is considerably less than it is in Scotland, and ask him whether he will do something in the matter?

Sir K. Wood: I am always very glad to make observations to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a special point of this?

SCHEMES (POSTPONEMENT).

Mr. McEntee: asked the Miinster of Health whether any local authorities in England and Wales have decided to postpone housing schemes or to reduce schemes already approved by them, owing to the rise in the prices of building; and will he give the names of such authorities?

Sir K. Wood: I understand that postponements have occurred in Leeds, Brighton, Southampton, Oswaldtwistle, and in the rural district of Marlborough and Ramsbury, because the tenders received were too high for acceptance.

Mr. Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage local authorities to postpone any schemes until the present abnormal demand for labour consequent on the rearmament programme has passed its peak?

Mr. Paling: In the cases in which the authorities refused to go on with the contracts, were the contract prices higher than the 8 per cent. mentioned in the previous answer?

Sir K. Wood: I should like an opportunity to examine the figures.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the effect that this is likely to have on his slum clearance policy, and will he, as early as possible, allay the anxieties of local authorities by informing them how long they will have to carry out their proposal?

Sir K. Wood: I have already made an announcement.

Mr. McEntee: Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to induce local authorities to postpone their schemes or to carry them out?

Sir K. Wood: I am suggesting to local authorities that they should test the market periodically. The answer I gave refers only to a small number of cases. In other cases tenders have been rejected and other tenders obtained.

Mr. Thorne: Unless you force local authorities to do something in this direction there will be overcrowding and they will be liable to be summoned at the police court.

OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Health the figures of those areas which have control of Poor Law relief where more than 10 per cent. of those in receipt of old age pensions are given assistance; and the name of the county that has the greatest number of old age pensioners who apply for relief?

Sir K. Wood: I am unable to supply the information asked for in the first part of the question, as the records of old age pensioners are not arranged on a geographical basis. As regards the second part, the administrative county in which the largest number of old age pensioners was in receipt of relief on 1st January last was London.

Mr. Tinker: May I press the right hon. Gentleman to try to get the information asked for in the first part of the question? This matter is causing a lot of unrest in the country. Some parts are harder hit than others. Surely the right hon. Gentleman can get the information if he desires, and I hope that he will.

Sir K. Wood: I should have to ask each local authority, and that would entail a great deal of work. General figures have been submitted from time to time.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend an increase in old age pensions?

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. Joel: asked the Minister of Health the cost of providing dental benefit as a statutory benefit; and whether there are any approved societies which now supply it?

Sir K. Wood: The cost of providing dental benefit as a statutory benefit cannot be estimated with precision in the absence of reliable data regarding the number of insured persons who would apply for treatment. Such information, however, as is available indicates that about 10 per cent. would apply for treatment each year at an average cost of about £4 per case. On this basis the cost would be approximately £7,000,000 a year. Dental benefit is provided as an additional benefit by 5,000 approved societies and branches in England and Wales with a total membership of

11,800,000 representing 75 per cent. of the insured population, and the expenditure on this benefit in 1936 was about £1,750,000.

Mr. Joel: asked the Minister of Health how many persons insured for health under the State scheme have, within the past 12 months, not selected any panel doctor; how many have not needed the services of their panel doctor; and what is the average number of attendances of those who have utilised the services of their different panel doctors?

Sir K. Wood: The number of persons who have been insured for 12 months without selecting an insurance doctor is not available, but the number of insured persons at any given time who have not selected a doctor although entitled to do so is about 495,000 in England and Wales. As to the second and third parts of the question, a recent sample investigation of the official records kept by doctors showed that 48 per cent. of the persons who had been on doctors' lists throughout 1936 had not been seen in the year and that the number of attendances, including home visits, per patient seen during the year was 7·1.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

RHEUMATISM.

Mr. E. Dunn: asked the Minister of Health what measures he proposes to adopt, if any, to combat the growing menace to health caused by rheumatism; the number of insured persons chargeable to the insurance fund for the years 1934, 1935, and 1936; what has been the cost, and the number of working days lost, due to this disease?

Sir K. Wood: Treatment for this varied and complex group of diseases is available in most of the voluntary general hospitals and the general hospitals owned by local authorities, and there are a number of institutions which specialise in the treatment of certain rheumatic diseases. I shall continue to give careful consideration to this matter but at present, I do not propose to introduce any special schemes which would supersede the progressive and increasing provision now being made to combat and study the disease and with which my medical advisers are in close association. I regret that the information asked for in the


last two parts of the question is not available.

Mr. Turton: Is the Minister not aware that mead, the effective palliative, is being taxed out of existence?

CANNED FOOD.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to recent cases of canned food being found unfit for human consumption; and whether, in the interests of public health, he will introduce legislation making it obligatory to show on the labels of canned food the actual date when the canning took place?

Sir K. Wood: I do not know what particular instances the hon. Member may have in mind, but I am aware that canned food has from time to time to be condemned as unfit for human consumption. With regard to the latter part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) on 19th November last, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great danger there is in people purchasing canned food without any knowledge of the date of canning, and that in this particular instance, had it not been for the good sense of the tradesman, disaster might have followed; and could this not be obviated if the date of canning were on the can?

Sir K. Wood: There are many difficulties in the way of carrying out the suggestion which the hon. Gentleman proposes, and of course, it would not meet every case. Perhaps he will consult with me about it.

Mr. Leslie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cut-price shops purchase old stocks and put new labels on them, and that this practice might be stopped if the date of canning were stamped on the tin?

Sir K. Wood: People who do that sort of thing might interfere with the date.

Mr. Lewis Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the date of canning may have no effect upon the quality of the contents, and that canned meat taken out by the Franklin Expedition was found a year ago to be perfect?

NURSES.

Sir Robert Rankin: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the increasing shortage of trained nurses and probationers; and whether, in view of the great expansion of the hospital system and public health services of the country in the last 10 years, he can state what steps are being taken to ensure an adequate supply of nurses during future years?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. I have been informed that there is a shortage of nurses relatively to the increased demands for their services. The matter is receiving my close attention and I understand that the associations representing local authorities are in communication with the General Nursing Council regarding certain measures for meeting the situation.

Miss Wilkinson: Has the Minister called the attention of the voluntary hospitals to the necessity for reducing the hours and increasing the wages of their nurses, if they wish to get a sufficient number?

Sir K. Wood: This is an important matter, and I think that many hospitals are doing what they can about it.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION NORTHUMBERLAND).

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Minister of Health the total number of recipients of workmen's compensation in Northumberland who are also in receipt of public assistance and, in addition, the total annual amount of public assistance paid to such persons?

Sir K. Wood: I regret that the statistical records in my Department do not enable this information to be given.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (NORTHUMBERLAND).

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in Northumberland in receipt of old age and widows' and orphans' contributory pensions, respectively?

Sir K. Wood: I regret that the information asked for by the hon. Member is not available as the records of pensioners are not arranged on a territorial basis.

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the public apprehension about an approaching recession in employment is based upon the slackening in stock and commodity speculation, or upon production, or the state of the world markets?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I am not aware of any widespread apprehension of this nature, and if it exists in any quarter it should be dissipated by the latest figures of production and employment.

SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS (STAMP DUTY).

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to raise the Stamp Duty upon stock, share, and commodity transactions, so far as they are speculations and not investment transactions, in view of the fact that gambling for the rise and fall in prices affects the cost of material and reacts on confidence and on industry in many ways?

Sir J. Simon: No, Sir. I do not consider that the hon. Member's suggestion is a practicable one for the purpose that he has in view.

Mr. Smith: In view of the way in which these people have exploited the national situation, could not steps be taken to discourage a repetition of this exploitation?

GOLD (PRICE).

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what proposals the South African Government have made for a reduction in the output from South African mines while the present glut of gold persists;
(2) what proposals the South African Government have made for assisting the British Government in the purchase and hoarding of gold with a view to the maintenance of the present high sterling price for gold?

Sir J. Simon: No such proposals have been made.

Mr. Lewis: Do I understand from the reply that although the South African Government wish the British Government

to maintain high sterling prices of gold, they are not prepared to share in the expense of so doing, when they themselves benefit so very largely from it?

Sir J. Simon: I have answered the question on the Paper, and I have nothing to add.

VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTORS' PENSIONS.

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to grant an allowance for Income Tax purposes to voluntary contributors under the new Voluntary Contributors' Act, in so far as such contributions are for pension benefits, with a view to giving such voluntary contributors the same advantage as is enjoyed by compulsory contributors, having regard to the fact that when such contributions are returned in pension form they will be liable to tax in the ordinary way?

Sir J. Simon: No, Sir. I would invite the hon. Member's attention to an answer on this subject which was given on 28th April last in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies).

INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION.

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement in regard to the visit to London of M. van Zeeland following the latter's discussions with the American President and Mr. Cordell Hull?

Colonel Nathan: asked the Prime Minister the present stage of the negotiation entrusted to M. van Zeeland by His Majesty's Government and others; and whether there is in contemplation in regard thereto any loan to any European State?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer hon. Members to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson).

Sir P. Harris: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to state what the policy of the Government is on the lowering of tariff barriers, and does he not think that Parliament, in a democratic country, should be kept informed of the


progress of these negotiations so that we can know what line the Government are taking?

The Prime Minister: It has been informed.

Colonel Nathan: May I ask the Prime Minister what were the certain general principles of economic policy among a number of States to which his answer yesterday made reference as the matters on which M. van Zeeland was endeavouring to obtain agreement?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot go back to a question which was asked yesterday.

Mr. Boothby: Does M. van Zeeland's mission mean that we ourselves are no longer in direct touch with the administration in Washington and have handed over all negotiations to M. van Zeeland?

The Prime Minister: No, certainly not.

SPAIN.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether consideration has been given by the Government and Committee of Imperial Defence to the problems that would arise in the event of a German-Italian control of Spain and the acquisition of submarine bases and aerodromes by these Powers; and whether, in view of the threat to British communication in the Mediterranean and the British Empire generally, he will state to what extent it will be necessary to increase the Army, Navy and Air Force above the present programme and the cost likely to be involved in the above eventuality?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Mander: Does the Prime Minister now appreciate that the foreign policy of the Government during the last year or two has been a first-class disaster to the Empire?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): Ask Foot.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Does the Prime Minister not think that a more precise and emphatic declaration than has yet been made that the territorial and political integrity of Spain are matters of vital concern to this country, about which

we cannot compromise, would have a very steadying effect in the present situation?

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte (by Private Notice): asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the controlled Italian Press to the effect that British warships have been ordered by the Admiralty to fire on insurgent aircraft which come within the range of their anti-aircraft guns but not at Spanish Government aircraft?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): I am glad of the opportunity of denying this report. Since the commencement of hostilities in Spain, the instructions to British warships employed in Spanish waters have been to defend themselves against any definitely hostile attacks by aircraft. These instructions apply without any discrimination whatsoever to the aircraft of both the contending parties.

Mr. McEntee: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any guarantee that the reply that he has given will be published in Italy?

Mr. Attlee (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement as to what proposals will be discussed at the meeting of the Non-Intervention Committee to-morrow in order to dissolve the present deadlock?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): As the House is aware from the statement which I made on Monday last, the Chairman's Sub-Committee of the Non-Intervention Committee decided last Friday to refer the proposals made by the French and United Kingdom Governments and by the German and Italian Governments respectively to all the representatives on the full Committee, with a view to their consideration at the Plenary Session of the Committee which is to be held to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock.

Mr. Attlee: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement in the House to-morrow in the event of some decision of importance being taken?

Mr. Eden: I will gladly consider that, but I rather anticipate, in view of the importance of this discussion by the Com-


mittee, that it will last over until the afternoon. If that is the case, I shall not be in a position before the House rises.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Have the French Government set any time limit on their keeping the Spanish-French frontier closed?

Mr. Eden: I think the right hon. Gentleman had better await the statement.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that our Government will not consider granting belligerent rights until the invading German and Italian troops have been withdrawn from Spain?

Mr. Eden: I think I have already made it clear that we have no intention of putting forward any proposals to-morrow, and we must await the outcome of to-morrow's meeting.

Mr. Benn: In the meantime, has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that foreign aircraft are bombarding Madrid?

Mr. Eden: I have noticed that there seem to be foreign aircraft on both sides.

NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTRIBUTION.

Sir C. Granville Gibson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that, in connection with the new Schedule to the Finance Bill, any unexhausted wear-and-tear allowance in respect of any accounting period can be carried forward to any subsequent accounting period?

Sir J. Simon: Under paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the Finance Bill (Adaptation of Income Tax provisions as to computation of profits), the wear and tear of each accounting period is allowed as an expense in computing the profits of that period for the purposes of the National Defence Contribution. If the result of that period is a loss, after deducting the wear and tear, the loss so arrived at falls to be carried forward under the provisions of paragraph 2 of the Schedule and deducted from the profits of subsequent periods.

IMPERIAL AIRWAYS SHARES (ESTATE DUTY).

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what valuation was fixed by the authorities at Somerset House for purposes of Estate Duty upon ordinary shares of Imperial Airways, Limited, prior to the announcement of the recent new issue; and whether the then current market price was accepted for that purpose?

Sir J. Simon: I am informed that, so far as is known, no departure has been made, in the case of ordinary shares in this company requiring to be valued for Estate Duty purposes, from the normal practice of the Inland Revenue authorities by which such valuation is made on the basis of the Stock Exchange quotation on the day of death.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give an assurance that Estate Duty will not be paid on the basis of a valuation which he has described as inflated?

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. hon. Gentleman aware that the price of these shares has fluctuated in recent years between 5s. and 62s., and does he consider that that is conducive to the well-being of aviation?

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PENSIONS).

Mr. Kirby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that many thousands of ex-service civil servants now serving in Government Departments are not given pension privileges, and that this is causing serious unrest among the men concerned and is strongly criticised by ex-service organisations; and whether he will take steps to inquire into this matter by setting up a suitable committee of inquiry?

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has considered the resolutions sent from organisations of civil servants pressing the claim that temporary service be counted for pensionable purposes; and whether he will set up a committee to inquire into this matter?

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has


reached a decision on the proposal to set up a committee to consider the Civil Service complaint regarding the action of the Treasury in refusing to allow temporary service to count for pensionable purposes?

Mr. Stephen: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the appointment of a committee of inquiry to see if it is possible to reckon temporary service of civil servants for pensionable purposes?

Sir J. Simon: Representations have recently been received that an inquiry is desirable as to the extent to which the temporary service of those ex-service men who originally entered service as temporary clerks should be reckoned for pension. The matter has been repeatedly examined, but the question whether further inquiry would serve any useful purpose will receive due consideration.

Mr. McEntee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of the London County Council and other large local authorities in the country such service is allowed to rank for pension?

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these men have served for as long as io years?

Sir J. Simon: I think the circumstances are well understood. As I have said, the matter has been examined more than once, but I am having the question considered whether it would be useful to have a further inquiry.

Mr. Jagger: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is prepared to permit Government Departments to provide pensions for Government messengers in the same way as local authorities are permitted under the Local Government Superannuation Bill of this year to provide pensions for servants?

Sir J. Simon: The staff in question are in general organised in two grades, of which the higher is established, the members of the lower grade being eligible for promotion to this grade. I can see no justification for a modification of this arrangement, and I would point out to the hon. Member that the State system of superannuation is non-contributory and differs in many other respects from the local government system.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

POULTRY INDUSTRY.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the Import Duties Advisory Committee to report their recommendations with regard to poultry and eggs?

Sir J. Simon: As my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, it is considered not to be in the public interest to answer questions regarding recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee until decisions have been taken thereon, since to do so would tend to give information which might lead to forestalling.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that we have been waiting a very long time for this report; and is it the case that the Committee are not reporting because they know it would be of no use their doing so until the Government denounce certain trade agreements?

Sir Gifford Fox: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, every week that goes by, more poultry producers are becoming bankrupt?

Mr. Turton: Have the Government any power to impose such duties until the trade agreements have lapsed?

Sir G. Fox: asked the Minister of Agriculture (1), the policy of his Department in the conduct of its laboratory at Weybridge at which blood-testing for fowls is carried out; and whether it is the intention of the Department gradually to crush out of the field private enterprise offering to do the same work, and to enter into any and every form of competition with such private enterprise;
(2) whether he is aware that the majority of laboratories dealing with the blood-testing of fowls receive no grant or subsidy, but rely solely on their good work and service to the industry to make the necessary turnover; and whether, since his laboratory at Weybridge is subsidised from public funds, he will ensure that there is no unfair competition in this particular branch of agricultural activity;
(3) whether he is aware that his Department has issued a leaflet stating that the


price of blood-testing for fowls has been reduced to 1½d. per sample at the Government laboratory at Weybridge; whether this charge is designed to undercut all similar private enterprise which cannot put it at such a low figure; and whether, in fixing this offer of testing, he takes into consideration the cost of the staff and the equipment, which is paid out of public taxes?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1935, the Minister of Agriculture is generally responsible for measures for eradicating poultry diseases in this country, and the work of the Ministry's laboratory at Weybridge in relation to the blood testing of fowls is undertaken partly as a service to the industry and partly to enable the Ministry to maintain contact with the needs of the industry. Until the present year the fee charged at Weybridge was 2d. per sample. For some time past a lower fee has been charged by some of the other laboratories offering this service, and, following strong representations from poultry keepers' associations, the charge at Weybridge has recently been reduced to 1½d. The work is self-supporting, and there is no question of unfair competition with other institutions.

Sir G. Fox: Will my right hon. Friend consider placing the accredited laboratories, which are now carrying out this work for accredited breeders, on the same basis as the Government laboratory, so that they may equally receive remuneration for this work from public funds?

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet taken any steps to denounce those trade agreements which prevent the Government from dealing with the importation of poultry and eggs from foreign countries; and whether any negotiations have been opened with regard to these agreements?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): No, Sir. As my hon. and gallant Friend was informed on 13th April last, the case of the poultry industry will receive consideration in connection with any negotiations which may take place for the revision of various trade agreements, and in the light of any report received from the Import Duties Advisory Committee on the application which is now before them.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: As it takes at least four or six months before any alteration can be made in these trade agreements, is it not time the right hon. Gentleman took some action in the matter?

Mr. Stanley: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is under some misapprehension. It is not necessary to proceed always by way of denunciation. There have been several examples where any alteration that was considered desirable has been done by agreed alteration of the old Treaty without any denunciation.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Why cannot my right hon. Friend start negotiations at once and try to get this alteration made?

Mr. Stanley: The House will realise that there are other things to be considered besides the poultry industry.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that it is time to get something done?

CREDITS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government will consider preparing schemes for providing long-term credits for farmers and others connected with the agricultural industry at a rate of 2½ or 3½ per cent. in place of the long-term credits which are now available at 5 per cent.?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Government are unable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. The Agricultural Mortgage Corporation is charged by Statute with the responsibility of providing long-term credits for farmers. I explained in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) on 3rd December last, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend, the reasons which preclude the corporation from reducing their rates of interest at the present time.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware that banks are selling up the homes of some of these poor people? May I ask:
What is it that these gloomy bankers gain,
One-half so precious as the homes they sell?

Mr. Morrison: I think that that question should be addressed to the bankers rather than to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

SCANDINAVIAN SERVICES.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has made representations to Imperial Airways, Limited, to the effect that they should encourage British passengers desirous of flying to Scandinavia to fly by British airways in preference to German, French, Belgian, or Dutch air lines; and, if so, with what result?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I am still continuing discussions with Imperial Airways on this matter.

GATWICK AIRPORT.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the building of Gatwick Airport in 1936 was encouraged by the Air Ministry; and whether the Air Ministry consider it suitable for all types of aircraft?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative, although, as regards the second part, some reservation is necessary as regards the larger types of aircraft in conditions of bad visibility, or when the landing area has been seriously affected by exceptionally bad weather.

Mr. Perkins: Is it not a fact that British Airways left this airport because they considered it to be unsuitable, and that the Government are committed to paying the owners of the airport a substantial subsidy?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Yes, Sir, it is true that British Airways left it, the reason being principally bad weather; and it is also true that the British Government is involved in a subsidy.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air for what reason wireless facilities have been withdrawn from Gatwick Airport?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Aeronautical wireless stations are provided according to the needs of regular scheduled air services, and, as such services have ceased to operate from Gatwick Aerodrome, the station was withdrawn.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

CONTRACTS.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, having regard

to the practice of the Air Ministry to base provisional prices, in the case of contracts placed by instructions to proceed, on the data available and on the conservative side, whether he will state the total provisional amount of such contracts still outstanding from the years ending 1935, 1936, and 1937; and whether there has been any adjustment of these estimates to meet the large increases in costs?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: As regards the first part of the question, I regret that, without the expenditure of a great amount of time and labour, it would be impracticable to compile this information. The answer to the last part is in the affirmative.

TRANSPORT OF TROOPS.

Captain Ramsay: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in the case of exercises held at Aldershot involving the transport of troops by air, every precaution is being taken to ensure that the aircraft used for such exercises are of modern construction and entirely suitable and safe for such operations?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Yes, Sir.

Captain Ramsay: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that only last week at least one machine, a Valentia, that is 11 years old has been used for this purpose; and is this age of machine in accordance with the standard of safety that he desires to maintain?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: That machine had not come into service use until about June, 1935, and I thought it was covered by my answer.

Captain Ramsay: Can my hon. and gallant Friend assure the House that no 11-year-old machines are being used for this purpose?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I can assure the House that the "Valentia" came into use at that date, and was therefore covered by my answer. As regards the exact date, perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put that down.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Trade the allocation made by the Steel Federation to steel re-rollers, with a view to satisfying consumers that the supply of steel available is being equitably distributed?

Mr. Stanley: I am informed that the allocation of steel to re-rollers is based on the quantities used by each re-roller in the year 1934, with provision for special consideration of exceptional cases. The arrangements have been agreed between the steelmakers and the National Association for Rolled and Re-Rolled Steel Products, of which nearly all re-rolling firms are members.

Mr. Mander: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain firms who started business, at the wish of the Government, since 1934, are very far from satisfied that they are being fairly treated; and will he be good enough to look into any case that I may bring to his attention?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir; I have told hon. Members that I shall be only too glad if they will bring any case to my notice.

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Trade the latest information with regard to the position of the Iron and Steel Federation, Limited; and whether its balance sheet can be made available for the information of those engaged in the industry?

Mr. Stanley: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the British Iron and Steel Federation. I am informed that the balance sheet of the federation is available to all its members.

Miss Wilkinson: In view of the public importance of the operations of the Federation, cannot the Minister secure that the balance sheet should be open to public inspection?

Mr. Stanley: The usual thing is to make the balance sheet available to the members of the Association.

Miss Wilkinson: Ought it not to be available to those who in the public interest desire to see what the Federation is doing?

Mr. Stanley: I will look into the point, but the hon. Lady will agree that when it is available to so many people, as it is in this case, one might say it is available to everyone.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that there is a Government director on the Board, could it not be made available to the public?

PORTUGUESE PORTS (FLAG DISCRIMINATION).

Mr. Benn: asked the President of the Board of Trade at what date the agreement of 14th October, 1933, relative to the abolition of all forms of discrimination against British vessels, became effective in Portugal and in the Portuguese colonies.

Mr. Stanley: The provisions of the Exchange of Notes of 14th October, 1933, relating to flag discrimination in Portuguese ports came into force on 1st July, 1934, in Portugal and the adjacent islands, and on 1st July, 1936, in the Portuguese colonies.

INLAND FISHING RIGHTS, SCOTLAND.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider introducing an enabling Bill empowering county councils in Scotland to acquire all fishing rights in lochs and other inland waters as an additional source of revenue from short-term fishing permits to tourists and others.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): My right hon. Friend does not see any prospect of legislation on the lines suggested in the question.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this revenue from potential visitors who are at present excluded owing to the private ownership of these fishing rights would be very welcome?

Mr. Wedderburn: That is a matter of opinion. I do not see any prospect of legislation on the subject.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not merely a matter of opinion but a matter of urgent necessity?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: Can the Prime Minister state the business for next week, and also how far it is intended to go to-night?

The Prime Minister: Monday:—Second Reading of the Milk (Amendment) Bill; Report and Third Reading of the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Bill, and of the Local Government Superannuation (Scotland) Bill.
Tuesday:—Second Reading of the Coal (Registration of Ownership) Bill [Lords]; Report stage of the Agriculture Bill; and Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Livestock Industry Bill.
Wednesday:—Report stage of the Finance Bill, and Third Reading of the Agriculture Bill.
Thursday:—Report stage of the Finance Bill.
Friday:—Third Reading of the Finance Bill.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
To-night it is hoped to conclude the Committee stage of the Agriculture Bill, and afterwards to take the Committee stage of the Export Guarantees Bill and the Nigeria (Remission of Payments) Bill. We are suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule to obtain this business, which I hope

will be done without sitting late. We also intend to take the Stretford Gas Order and the other Gas Orders on the Paper, which are exempted business.

Mr. Attlee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable controversy over the Stretford Gas Order, and it is undesirable that it should come on very late and that the House should be kept late?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware of that, but I hope that it will not be necessary to sit late all the same. We will see how we get on.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)".—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 117.

Division No. 269.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Grimston, R. V.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J
Crooke, J. S.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cross, R. H.
Hannah, I. C.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Assheton, R.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Culverwe11, C. T.
Hartington, Marquess of


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Davison, Sir W. H.
Harvey, Sir G.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
De Chair, S. S.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
De la Bère, R.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Donner, P. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Bernays, R. H.
Dower, Major A. V. G.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Drewe, C.
Hepworth, J.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Higgs, W. F.


Blair, Sir R.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Duggan, H. J.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Bossom, A. C.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Holdsworth, H.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Dunglass, Lord
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Eastwood, J. F.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Brass, Sir W.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hulbert, N. J.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Elmley, Viscount
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Emery, J. F.
Joel, D. J. B.


Bull, B. B.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Keeling, E. H.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Butler, R. A.
Errington, E.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Caine, G. R. Hall.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Kimball, L.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Fildes, Sir H.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Carver, Major W. H.
Fleming, E. L.
Latham, Sir P.


Cary, R. A.
Foot, D. M.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Leckie, J. A.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Furness, S. N.
Lees-Jones, J.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Leigh, Sir J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Channon, H.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Levy, T.


Christie, J. A.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Lewis, 0.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Gledhill, G.
Liddall, W. S.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Lipson, D. L.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Lloyd, G. W.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Cranborne, Viscount
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
McKie, J. H.




Macquisten, F. A.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Magnay, T.
Ramsbotham, H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Rankin, Sir R.
Sutcliffe, H.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Marsden, Commander A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Tate, Mavis C.


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham
Thomas, J. P. L.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Touche, G. C.


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Turton, R. H.


Morgan, R. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Rothschild, J. A. de
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Warrender, Sir V.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J
Russell, Sir Alexander
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Munro, P.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Watt, G. S. H.


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wayland, Sir W. A


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Salmon, Sir I.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Salt, E. W.
Wells, S. R.


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Sandys, E. D.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Palmer, G. E. H.
Savory, Sir Servington
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Patrick, C. M.
Selley, H. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Peake, O.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Peat, C. U.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Petherick, M.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Pilkington, R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.



Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Procter, Major H. A.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Radford, E. A.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
and Major Sir George Davies.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Price, M. P.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pritt, D. N.


Adamson, W. M.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Purbrick, R.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hopkin, D.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Ammon, C. G.
Jagger, J.
Ridley, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Riley, B.


Banfield, J. W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
John, W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Barr, J.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Batey, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rowson, G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Kelly, W. T.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kirby, B. V.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Buchanan, G.
Lathan, G.
Sexton, T. M.


Burke, W. A.
Lawson, J. J.
Shinwell, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Leach, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Chater, D.
Leonard, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Cluse, W. S.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cocks, F. S.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees (K'ly)


Daggar, G.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
McEntee, V. La T.
Stephen, C.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Day, H.
MacLaren, A
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Dobbie, W.
Maclean, N.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Thorne, W.


Ede, J. C.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mander, G. le M.
Viant, S. P.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Marshall, F.
Walker, J.


Frankel, D.
Mathers, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Gallacher, W.
Maxton, J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Garro Jones, G. M
Messer, F.
Westwood, J.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Milner, Major J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Montague, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Muff, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.



Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, A.
Paling, W.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Parkinson, J. A.

BILLS PRESENTED.

ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS BILL,

"to secure to the public the right of access to mountains and moorlands," presented by Mr. Mander; supported by Mr. Acland, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Hopkin, Miss Lloyd George, Mr. Mabane, Mr. Noel-Baker, Mr. Ellis Smith, Colonel Wedgwood, Mr. Graham White, Miss Wilkinson, and Mr. Cecil Wilson; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 193.]

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL,

"to amend the law with respect to Customs in the Isle of Man," presented by Lieut.-Colonel Colville; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 194.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMEN- TARY ESTIMATES, 1937.

Estimate presented—of a further sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1938 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Maidenhead Water) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Sevenoaks Water) Bill, without Amendment.

Livestock Industry Bill,

Rotherham Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision for the ascertainment and registration of particulars as to proprietary interests in unworked coal and mines of coal and in certain associated minerals and property and rights in land, and for purposes connected therewith. [Coal (Registration of Ownership) Bill [Lords.]

LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 195.]

COAL (REGISTRATION OF OWNER SHIP) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 196.]

BILLS REPORTED.

WHITEHAVEN HARBOUR BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

WOODHALL SPA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

POOLE CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group L of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Exchequer contributions towards purchases of lime and basic slag.)

The Chairman: The Amendment in the name of the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) is one about which I have some doubt, but I shall call it and reserve my right to stop it if I find that it is out of order.

4.2 p.m.

Sir Francis Acland: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, after "slag," to insert:
or of sea-sand containing not less than two tons of lime.
This is mainly a local matter, and I shall deal with it as briefly as possible. Cornwall has no limestone in it, except that which is imported by the Atlantic rollers from the sea-bottom, and therefore the limestone which is available by land is very dear. If one tries to get quotations for lime supplied anywhere to a Cornish railway station, one finds that the price for hydrated lime, which is midway between that of lump lime and ground lime, ranges from about 40s. to 48s. a ton, and on top of that there are haulage charges from the railway station. Therefore, this imported lime works out at a price of about £2 10s. a ton, or 2S. 6d. a cwt., which is a very high charge compared with the cost in any other county in England or Wales where limestone is available much closer. Against that the import from the Atlantic, if I may put it so, is available much more cheaply, and in many cases what is available is of a very high quality in the form of sea-sand. There are seven beaches along the north coast of Cornwall where you get sea-sand containing limestone carbonate, in percentages varying from 68 to 84, which means that in terms of calcium oxide the farmer can get a ton of calcium oxide from two to three tons of sand. There are places with not quite as high a percentage but where three to four tons of sand will provide a ton of calcium oxide.
This lime obtainable from the sea beaches should not be ruled out of the lime scheme under this Clause. A fertiliser scheme is to be framed under the Clause, and if I could be told that consideration would be given to including in it this sea-sand lime, which is the Cornish farmers' main supply, my point would be met. I am told that it would be quite possible, with the help of the Farmers' Union, to work out a scheme which would prevent the subsidy going in the wrong direction, and that is of course essential. There is, I know, the very important question of not spoiling the beaches by taking away too much sand. That can be and ought to be dealt with, although it is difficult and it differs in different places. In some cases it is possible for local authorities to make by-laws for preserving their beaches, and there is the fact that the owners of the foreshore have certain rights in the matter. I hope that the Government will not rule out the possibility of getting the lime where it is reasonably available on the sea coast.

4.7 P.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I am glad to be able to give the right hon. Baronet the assurance that he requires. It is our intention that sea-sand shall be included in this scheme under Clause 3, sub-section (i) (g). That will enable us to bring sea-sand into the definition of lime. As I have given that assurance perhaps the right hon. Baronet will not press his Amendment.

Sir F. Acland: In view of that statement I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: rose—

The Chairman: If the hon. and gallant Member speaks, the right hon. Baronet cannot withdraw his Amendment.

4.8 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: No other hon. Member has had an opportunity of saying a word on the Amendment. I should like to reinforce what the right hon. Baronet said. It has been an old custom, dating from the time of James I, for Cornish farmers to cart sand from the shores. I am very glad to say that, some days ago, after I had been in communication with the Minister of


Agriculture on the subject, he gave me a most favourable reply and said that before the Committee stage of the Bill he would be able to give us what he hoped would be a positive assurances that Cornish sea-sand would not be ruled out. I am very glad that the right hon. Baronot has to-day had the confirmation which I was led to expect.

4.9 P.m.

Mr. Petherick: I do not want to delay the proceedings. In the course of a speech the other day on the Financial Resolution the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) referred to the absence from the discussions of the three Conservative Members for Cornwall. This is what he said:
This point has been raised by the Farmers' Union, and I am bound to put it here to-night because my colleagues who represent Cornwall have not been present during this debate.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1937; col. 1898, Vol. 325.]
He referred to the fact that we were absent at a by-election.

The Chairman: I cannot see that the attendance of hon. Members in Committee on the Financial Resolution has anything to do with this Amendment.

Mr. Petherick: The discussion on the Financial Resolution, which was raised by the right hon. Baronet, was on the subject of sea-sand and the object of this Amendment is to include sea-sand in the Bill. Am I not therefore right, when reproached by the right hon. Baronet, to explain the reason why we were absent and the measures that we have taken to raise this subject?

Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Gentleman was perhaps justified in making his apologia.

The Chairman: I certainly cannot allow this discussion to be continued.

Amendment negatived.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, to leave out "each," and to insert "the Commons."
I make no claim to being a constitutional lawyer, nor have I a great knowledge of procedure in this House, but hon. Members will notice that this Clause makes a charge upon public funds, and

I have understood for some time that this House has always held that we have control over finance without any interference from another place. If hon. Members look at the last part of Sub-section (3) they will see that the prescribed date may be postponed by orders made by the Ministers and confirmed by a resolution "of each House of Parliament." I wish to know from the Minister why "each House of Parliament" has been inserted there, whether the other House has any control at all of public finance, and whether this does not raise a question of privilege.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: The hon. Member very honestly said that he was not a constitutional lawyer. Had it been solely a question of the taxation of the subject which was involved in this Clause no constitutional lawyer could have been more correct than the hon. Member, but as it happens it is not merely a question of taxation which is involved but also a question of policy, namely, whether after the first three years the contribution ought to be continued or not. It is not entirely a question of taxation but also a question of policy. Therefore, I understand, it is not a subject of privilege in the strict sense that the hon. Member suggested, and it requires a resolution by both Houses of Parliament. I might add that it would be rather illogical to confine the extension of these two periods to this House when in point of fact during the passage of the Bill we required a vote of both Houses to the original three-year period under which the assistance may be given. But I base my argument mainly on the fact that it is not entirely a question of taxation but also one of policy.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Is the Minister stating the opinion of the Board of Agriculture or the considered opinion of the Cabinet on what is potentially a very important matter?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am stating what I have been told by my advisers. Every Department has advisers of great skill and judgment.

Mr. Benn: The advisers of the Board of Agriculture?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Certainly. Every Department has advisers.

Mr. T. Smith: On a point of Order. A perusal of Erskine May shows that this question of privilege is not limited to taxation. In an important question like this we ought to have a Law Officer present.

The Chairman: The point of Order has been put to me. The sole guardian of Privilege in this House is Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Benn: Is it not a fact that we cannot put this as a question of privilege unless it had come from another place? Inasmuch as it is not an invasion from another place but a surrender by this House, we have to debate with a Minister who comes from the Ministry of Agriculture a question of high constitutional procedure.

The Chairman: Is the hon. Member putting that point to me?

Mr. Benn: Yes, Sir Dennis. I was venturing to put the point in connection with your own statement that Mr. Speaker can decide this matter.

The Chairman: I said the question of Privilege.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I think it will be agreed in all parts of the Committee that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) has raised a considerable Constitutional point, and the Minister has not met the point in any way. This is not a question of the whole scheme. If hon. Members will look at Sub-section (3) they will see that it simply deals with the time limit within which money may be paid. The substantive part of the Clause says that contributions shall not be made under this Section after the prescribed date, which is fixed as 31st July, 1940, and it goes on to say:
Provided that the prescribed date may be postponed for not more than two successive periods of one year each by orders made by the Ministers with the consent of the Treasury and confirmed by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
That is to say, that in order to extend the time during which an unlimited sum of public money may be paid out of funds provided by Parliament the consent of each House of Parliament is specifically made necessary. In this House we may want this money to continue to be paid for another year, but under this proviso the other place may refuse to pass the Order and may, therefore, defeat the in-

tentions of this House on a matter which is purely one of finance. Therefore, this part of the Clause does not deal with the whole scheme but with the time within which money is to be paid out.
I make two submissions. I submit that this is a matter of considerable importance from the point of view of the Privileges of this House, and also with regard to what this House has done in the past as to the control of finance. My first submission is, that this proviso makes an exception to the terms of the Parliament Act. Under Section 1 of the Parliament Act it is provided, first, that a Money Bill must receive the Royal Assent if the Peers fail to pass it without Amendment within the space of one month. The same Section goes on to say that a Money Bill means a Public Bill which contains only provisions dealing with:
the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund, or on money provided by Parliament, or the variation or repeal of any such charges.
To select from those words the relevant words, the Act reads like this:
A Money Bill means a Public Bill the purpose of which is the imposition of charges on money provided by Parliament.
The purpose of the Parliament Act, or that Section of it, was to make it quite certain in the future that where a charge was to be imposed in that way, the other place should not have any power of interference. In the present case we are giving them back the power to intervene in a matter of finance. It ought to be made perfectly clear that we are here dealing with a Constitutional question. I would ask hon. Members to imagine what might happen under the machinery of this Clause. It is provided earlier in the Clause that the Minister may make payments for these particular purposes, but he is not bound to make payments before 1940. Let us suppose that by the appointed day, 31st July, 1940, no payments have been made. Then, in order for there to be any charge at all upon public funds provided by this House, there would have to be a Resolution of each House of Parliament. It is clear that we are making the assent of the other place necessary to the imposition of a charge. That is not only contrary to the purpose of the Parliament Act, but it is contrary to the stand that we have always taken for many centuries on matters of


finance. I would remind the Committee of the terms of a very famous Resolution passed by this House on this matter as long ago as 3rd July, 1678. [Laughter.] It is easy for hon. Members to laugh, but this Resolution is still quoted as one of the guides of this House in matters of finance. It is a Resolution which has stood the test for hundreds of years. Is says:
That all aids and supplies, and aids to His Majesty in Parliament, are the sole gift of the Commons; and all bills for the granting of any such aids and supplies ought to begin with the Commons; and that it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct, limit and appoint in such bills the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords
That was the opinion of this House then, and, as far as I know, the opinion of this House has never altered on that question. Under the provisions of this Sub-section we may decide to impose a charge, and it will then be possible for that charge to be changed or altered by the House of Lords. In these circumstances the Committee ought not to be satisfied with the brief and perfunctory reply which we have received from the Minister, and I hope that on this matter, which concerns the Privileges of this House, we shall have support from both sides.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
In view of the obvious Constitutional issue involved, I am moving to report Progress so that we may at least have present with us either the Minister of Agriculture or a Law Officer of the Crown, who can reply to the very cogent arguments submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) and the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot). It is clear that there are

divisions on this issue not only of 1678 but of 1910, and it is clear that the Minister of Pensions, who on every occasion does his best to reply to the arguments advanced, finds himself in a great difficulty. Therefore, I think that hon. Members sitting in all parts of the Committee, in view of the obvious possibilities arising out of this surrender of power by this House, ought to support the Motion to report Progress, so that we may have the Minister of Agriculture with us, who is himself a legal luminary, or a Law Officer of the Crown, in case the Minister of Agriculture is involved in preparing further subsidies for agriculture. As the hon. Member has said, should a Socialist Government come into office within the next three years a consummation devoutly to be wished by most decent people—and they desire to manifest their real sympathy with and desire to help agriculture, it would be within the power of Noble Lords in another place to defeat the objects of that Socialist Government. Clearly this is a point that ought to be cleared up to the satisfaction of hon. Members in all parts of the Committee. I am sure that the Minister of Pensions himself feels the force of the arguments that have been advanced.

The Chairman: I must remind the hon. Member that he is moving to report Progress. Therefore, he cannot debate the question involved.

Mr. Williams: I readily fall in with your wishes, and repeat that I am moving to report Progress so that we may have a Law Officer of the Crown present, or the Minister of Agriculture, who can reply on this Constitutional issue.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 228.

Division No. 270.]
AYES.
[4.25 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Adams, D. (Consett)
Buchanan, G.
Ede, J. C.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Burke, W. A.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)


Adamson, W. M.
Chater, D.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Cluse, W. S.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cocks, F. S.
Foot, D. M.


Banfield, J. W.
Cove, W. G.
Gallacher, W.


Barnes, A. J.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Garro Jones, G. M.


Barr, J.
Dagger, G.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Batey, J.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Bellenger, F. J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Debbie, W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.




Grenfell, D. R.
McGhee, H. G.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
MacLaren, A.
Sanders, W. S.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Maclean, N.
Sexton, T. M.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Shinwell, E.


Harris, Sir P. A.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Silverman, S. S.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Simpson, F. B.


Hayday, A.
Mander, G. le M.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Marshall, F.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Mathers, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Maxton, J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees (K'ly)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Messer, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Holdsworth, H.
Milner, Major J.
Stephen, C.


Hopkin, D.
Montague, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-1e-Sp'ng)


Jagger, J.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Strauss, G. F. (Lambeth, N.)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Muff, G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Thorne, W.


John, W.
Oliver, G. H.
Thurtle, E.


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Paling, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parkinson, J. A.
Viant, S. P.


Kelly, W. T.
Pritt, D. N.
Walker, J.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Watkins, F. C.


Kirby, B. V.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Lathan, G.
Ridley, G.
Westwood, J.


Lawson, J. J.
Riley, B.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Leach, W.
Ritson, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Leonard, W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Leslie, J. R.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Logan, D. G.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Lunn, W.
Rothschild, J. A. de



McEntee, V. La T.
Rowson, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Culverwell, C. T.
Hulbert, N. J.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Davison, Sir W. H.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
De Chair, S. S.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
De la Bère, R.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Joel, D. J. B.


Assheton, R.
Donner, P. W.
Keeling, E. H.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Dower, Major A. V. G.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Balniel, Lord
Drewe, C.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Kimball, L.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Duggan, H. J.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Beaumont, Hon. F. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Dunglass, Lord
Latham, Sir P.


Beechman, N. A.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Beit, Sir A. L.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Leckie, J. A.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Elmley, Viscount
Lees-Jones, J.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Emery, J. F.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bird, Sir F. B.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Blair, Sir R.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Levy, T.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Lewis, O.


Bossom, A. C.
Errington, E.
Liddell, W. S.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Lipson, D. L.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Furness, S. N.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Lloyd, G. W.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. 0. S.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Gledhill, G.
McKie, J. H.


Bull, B. B.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Macquisten, F. A.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Magnay, T.


Butler, R. A.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Granville, E. L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Marsden, Commander A.


Cary, R. A.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Channon, H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Hannah, I. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Christie, J. A.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hartington, Marquess of
Morgan, R. H.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Harvey, Sir G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Munro, P.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Hepburn, P. C. T. Buchan-
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hepworth, J.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Crooke, J. S.
Higgs, W. F.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Cross, R. H.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Crossley, A. C.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. 0. J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Patrick, C. M.







Peake, O.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Peat, C. U.
Salmon, Sir I.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Salt, E. W.
Turton, R. H.


Petherick, M.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Pilkington, R.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Savery, Sir Servington
Warrender, Sir V.


Procter, Major H. A.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Radford, E. A.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Watt, G. S. H.


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Ramsbotham, H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wells, S. R.


Ramsden, Sir E.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Rankin, Sir R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Rayner, Major R. H.
Storey, S.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Reid, Captain A. Cunningham
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Remer, J. R.
Sutcliffe, H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Tate, Mavis C.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Thomas, J. P. L.



Russell, Sir Alexander
Touche, G. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Tree, A. R. L. F.
Major Sir George Davies and




Mr. Grimston.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Question again proposed, "That the word 'each' stand part of the Clause."

4.35 P.m.

Mr. Benn: I hope the Minister will realise that no disrespect is intended to him personally by raising the question whether this is properly a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture. It is rather a wider point than that, and one which is of great interest to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee. If anyone reads Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice
they will find many instances of recent Rulings on this matter by the Chair, and
we can remember many ourselves. There was the Licensing Bill in 1904, the Unemployment Bill, and the Police Pensions Bill. There are many cases which have declared that the Resolution of 1678—
that the considerations, conditions, limitations, and qualifications of such grants ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords"—
is still the existing practice of Parliament. I do not want to pursue the matter if the Minister of Agriculture can give us an assurance that he will accept the Amendment. It will not in any way affect his policy, and if he can give us an assurance that he is prepared to insert the Amendment in some form at a later stage I have no doubt my hon. Friend will be satisfied. If such an assurance is not forthcoming we must discuss the matter further.

4.37 P.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I do not resent in any way the point being raised, because I understand the importance which the House most properly attaches to a matter which affects

its privileges on a question of finance. I must apologise for being absent during the first part of the Debate, but I had an engagement which I could not very well avoid. The view I took of the Amendment when I saw it on the Order Paper was that it proceeded on a misapprehension. I quite appreciate the motive which induced the hon. Member to put it down. The fact is that this House must retain control over money matters, but at the same time we must try to distinguish beween money matters pure and simple per se and those question which not infrequently occur when matters of general policy are of necessity combined with the expenditure of money. In this Bill we are asking this House and the other place to agree to expenditure for the first three years, so that policy and money are mixed, and it seems to me a little incongruous that we should require the assent of both Houses of Parliament to a policy for the first three years and then require that an extension should be sanctified by the expression of one House alone. It would be hard if we were to draw the line too tightly, and we must be careful, on both sides of this constitutional matter, to avoid cases in which questions of policy may be withdrawn from the other place because money is involved.
It is hard to imagine any major Measure which is entirely divorced from the expenditure of public money. I have given at short notice my view on the matter. I have not heard the arguments which have been advanced by hon. Members opposite, but I hope they will realise that my view is not one which has


been hastily formed or without some grounds for it. I should like to have an opportunity of considering the matter afresh between now and the Report stage, a request which I do not think is unreasonable in the circumstances.

Mr. Benn: Does the Minister suggest that my hon. Friend should withdraw the Amendment on condition that the matter is reconsidered by the Government between now and Report? May I ask whether there is anything in the Rules which would prevent us from moving the Amendment again on the Report stage, having an effective discussion and a Division if necessary?

The Chairman: I have not the least objection to the right hon. Member asking the question, but I am afraid that I cannot answer it, as what can be done on Report does not rest with me.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Can you give us some guidance as to whether in your judgment this Amendment would in fact be regarded as increasing the charge? It would have the effect of postponing or not postponing the extension, which is virtually imposing a charge.

Mr. T. Williams: If my hon. Friend offers to withdraw the Amendment in order that the right hon. Gentleman should re-examine the problem between now and Report, will the Minister, if he feels that the Amendment is justified, himself put down an appropriate Amendment for consideration on Report?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am in a slight difficulty as I have not had the advantage of hearing the arguments which have been adduced in support of the Amendment, but what I am perfectly prepared to undertake, and I shall be glad of the opportunity, is to read the arguments in the OFFICIAL REPORT and consider carefully the views advanced on both sides between now and the Report stage. If the arguments are well-founded—I cannot, of course, do it against my own conviction, and hon. Members would not expect me to do so—I shall be prepared to propose appropriate words on the Report stage.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: In the event of the right hon. Gentleman coming to a different decision would it preclude us from putting down the Amendment for Report and discussing it?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think there is any difficulty about the Opposition putting down any Amendment they like, although I cannot answer for the Chair. I do not want to take advantage of the Opposition in this matter, and if what I am saying will satisfy the Committee, I hope they will take it from me that the matter will be adequately considered on its merits before the Report stage.

Mr. Pritt: Can the Minister give us a further undertaking, that the business of the Committee will so proceed that there will be a Report stage, and, secondly, that he will notify the hon. Member who put down the Amendment as soon as possible of the views of the Department?

Mr. Morrison: I shall be glad to give an assurance on those two points. I have on the Order Paper certain Amendments, and I cherish the hope that they will ensure a Report stage. I gladly accede to the reasonable request that the hon. Member who has put down the Amendment shall have as long notice as I can give of the intentions of the Government.

Mr. T. Smith: I think the discussion has been worth while as the point involved is an important one. In view of the undertaking given by the Minister I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.43 P.m.

Mr. T. Williams: The provision of lime and basic slag is perhaps more commendable than many of the other proposals of the Government. There is one thing to be said for this subsidy, and that is that the farmer himself will have to spend money before he can derive any benefit, and to that extent we may be forgiven for partially supporting the proposal. One is bound to say that all too frequently over a period of years money has been provided in one form and another for agriculture, and incidentally for those who own the land, without any condition whatever so far as the taxpayer and the general consumer are concerned. I am not sure whether on future occasions we should not be more than justified in demanding a quid pro quo


from agriculturists before further taxpayers' money is made available for the industry. It is a fundamental part of Labour policy that if they had the power they would not hesitate to take over agricultural land as a national estate, and then there would be no difficulty in fertilising a national estate. At the moment we are fertilising somebody else's estate, and that kind of thing has gone far enough.
I want to ask one or two questions as to the prices which may be paid for lime and basic slag, and whether any further guarantees have been given by those who provide lime and basic slag as to the prices they are likely to charge.
notice that in the "Fertiliser, Feeding Stuffs and Farm Supplies Journal" for 30th June, various prices are given for basic slag and it is stated in a footnote:
It should be noted that a rebate of 2S. 6d. per ton is allowed on deliveries during July and August.
I wonder whether after August, when the sales are increased, the same rebate will be given for all basic slag purchased by farmers and partially paid for by the Treasury. We are at least entitled to know whether the rebate which is given during July and August is to be made available in subsequent periods. The right hon. Gentleman could not give any price for lime or basic slag because of the varying qualities. I have here a list of prices for lime and basic slag, and I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, when he spoke on one or two previous occasions, did not give some indication of how prices on 1st May compared with prices on 30th June. I know that there is a price for lime as low as 7s. 6d. for June delivery, and there is a price as high as 32s. Does the Ministry intend to recommend either one quality or another? Are all qualities to be purchased throughout the country according to the will of the individual farmer?
I think we ought to have heard more from the right hon. Gentleman concerning prices than we have heard. Hon. Members on this side are particularly anxious that while the Treasury is subsiding fertilisers for agriculture, no third party shall take undue advantage of the opportunity which the Treasury alone is providing. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether this rebate which is given during July and August will con-

tinue during the subsidy period, and whether the prices recorded in the "Fertiliser, Feeding Stuffs and Farm Supplies Journal" are comparable with the prices on 1st May, the date fixed upon for the ruling price for lime and basic slag to be purchased by farmers.

4.48 p.m.

Sir Ronald Ross: The hon. Gentleman for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), despite his great acquaintance with agriculture, made a fundamental mistake in the first few words which he said about this Clause. Evidently he looks upon this as a subsidy to farmers, but I look upon it as a subsidy to land. There is a very great distinction between this assistance and any other assistance which has been given to agriculture. In this case, such assistance as is given must go into the land, and the farmer himself must contribute. Land is a potential reserve for the food supplies of the whole people, and I look upon this as an admirable step in our agricultural policy.
I remember that in my grandfather's time, every small farm in the North of Ireland had its own lime kiln and burnt its own lime. In those days they had only the lime and such manure as was on the farms to improve the land, and I think they grew much better crops than are grown now. This is a new principle, and one which, I think, should commend itself to every hon. Member on all sides of the Committee. I have a little difficulty in seeing what peculiar charm nationalisation would have on this problem, because the same thing would have to be provided by the same people and put on the land for the same purpose, but no doubt in due course I shall receive instruction from the hon. Member and his friends on that, although I shall be surprised if I am won over. This is an admirable Clause, representing one of the most noteworthy steps in the agricultural policy of the Government.

4.50 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps: Perhaps I may attempt to elucidate the position which the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) has just said is not clear. Let us assume that he is a large landowner in some part of the country and has a large landowner as a neighbour, and let us suppose that the neighbouring landowner says to him, "Will you provide enough money for my tenants


to manure my land? Of course, you will get no benefit out of it, but still, I shall hereafter, because the letting value of my land will be increased." I imagine that the hon. Baronet would say, "That does not seem to be a very good deal for me; I am to provide the money, but I am to get nothing out of it." I think that would be the hon. Baronet's answer.

Sir R. Ross: As a matter of fact, I should say, "Search me."

Sir S. Cripps: It is really the same answer put in another form. That is exactly what is happening in this case. The ownership of the land remains in the various individuals, but the community as a whole undertakes the expenditure upon that land, through the tenant or whoever is working the land, and gets no benefit itself, as regards the value of the land, from the increased expenditure. Exactly the same thing applies to the whole of this system of subsidies. If the Government, by means of this system are going to make what is called a prosperous agriculture, the result will be that rents will go up for farmers in the countryside, and the increased rent, which is the return to the community on its expenditure on making agricultural prosperous, will go for the benefit of the individual landowners and not for the benefit of the community as a whole. If it came back in the form of taxation, if there were a tax which took 100 per cent. of any increased rental, there might be some argument for the subsidy.

Sir R. Ross: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is directed primarily to me, but if it is, I would remind him that the question of rents does not affect my constituents owing to their being bought out under the Land Acts.

Sir S. Cripps: I am not dealing only with the constituents of the hon. Baronet, but with the ambit of this Bill, which goes rather wider than the constituents of the hon. Baronet, I understand. He will appreciate that the effect of paying these subsidies, if it is to increase the prosperity of agriculture—and if it is not, it is obviously useless—will be necessarily to raise the letting value of the land. That increased letting value which will arise out of these payments by the community will not come back to the community, but

will go to the individuals who have taken no special part in the expenditure of the money. I should have thought that that would have been enough to convince the hon. Baronet that this is not a fair deal for the community. It might be that one could devise a method of subsidy, with a 100 per cent. tax on all increased rents, which might be fair, but as here all the benefit is passing to the individual in respect of community expenditure, it inevitably makes people turn their minds to the contemplation to a state of affairs in which the community owns the land upon which it expends its money.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Has the hon. and learned Member read Clause 5?

The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's reference to Clause 5 shows that we are getting far beyond Clause 1. I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that not only are we not discussing the nationalisation of land, but there is a rule against having a Second Reading Debate on the Committee stage of the Bill.

Sir S. Cripps: I appreciate your Ruling, but I was charitably attempting to answer the question put by the hon. Baronet.

Sir R. Ross: And signally failing. May I also say, further to your Ruling, Sir Dennis, that when I said I expected to have lectures on this subject, I did not expect them to follow immediately afterwards? I did not suggest that they would be appropriate on this occasion, but said that I had not quite appreciated the point which the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) had made, and that no doubt in the course of years I should understand it perfectly.

Sir S. Cripps: I thought that the sooner the hon. Baronet had an opportunity of being enlightened, the better. Let me now return to the Clause, which directly bears on the point that I was stressing, because, in my submission, the chief objection to this Clause is that it is providing this subsidy, by way of part of the price of manures, which is increasing the value of the land upon which the manures are used, and indeed it is out of that that the community will rot derive any benefit as a community. It may be that some special class will derive a benefit, but I certainly object to this form of subsidy


which is merely for the benefit of a particular class in the community, when it is being expended not on public property, but upon private property.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: I cannot believe that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) knows very much about the tenure of agricultural land. Although he lives in the country and takes an interest in agriculture, he does not seem to have familiarised himself with the methods by which land is let. A farmer who rents a farm from a landlord does not have his rent put up from time to time; he takes the farm, and when he dies or retires the farm is re-let.

Mr. T. Smith: Only on Friday of last week, a farmer told me that he took a farm at 7s. 6d. an acre, that the next year it was raised to 10s. an acre, and that in the following year it was also raised.

Mr. Assheton: I should be interested to hear more about that transaction, because it certainly is not in accordance with the general practice throughout the country, and I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will bear me out in that. No doubt the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol also knows that when a farmer gives up his farm, the fanner who takes it over, or the landlord, has to pay for unexpired manurial values in the ordinary way. The Bill which is now before us would not make any difference in that respect. It is impossible to see how the landlords will get anything out of this. The land will be temporarily improved, and the improvement will result in a very well-merited improvement in the business of the farmers.

4.54 P.m.

Mr. MacLaren: I agree that this is not a Clause on which we can have Second Reading speeches on general policy, and I shall avoid, as far as I can, attempting to make one. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Assheton) questioned whether the landowners would raise the rents because of any encouragement given to them by way of bounties from the State, and he said that he had never heard of anything of the kind. I think it will be within the recollection of most hon. Members that the Corn Production Act enhanced the value of land and that

under the operation of that Act landowners went, practically with pistol in hand, to farmers and told them either to buy the land at the higher values or to get out. The result is that the farmers to-day are trying to pay off heavy mortgages incurred in those circumstances. When the Corn Production Act was repealed, they were left with these high mortgages on their hand, and the House again had to come to the rescue.

Mr. Assheton: The hon. Member, I am afraid, did not hear the speech made yesterday afternoon by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland), who pointed out that in spite of subsidies rents are now only 90 per cent. of what they were in pre-War years.

Mr. MacLaren: I presume that if this Bill were not passed and if this productivity campaign were not proceeded with, rents would fall still further. If that is so, then it is clear that by the expenditure of this money for the specific purpose of creating greater productivity in the soil, we are maintaining rents at a given point. If this Bill means anything at all, it means that we are going to make the land more productive than it is. Is there any charitable landowner in the House of Commons or outside who will then look out on his estate and see it flourishing more than it ever flourished before, as a result of this State expenditure, and who will say to his tenants, "Here you are, take advantage of this; I will not increase the rent." Such a landlord has not yet come from Heaven or from Hell. There is no use in wasting time talking about it. Expenditure on the soil, whether by the individual landowner, the tenant or the State, will ultimately accrue to the advantage of the rental value of that land when it is let.
During the earlier proceedings on this Bill there was in these discussions a recurrent phrase which had a very tantalising effect. That was the phrase "our land." There were constant references to the necessity for this fertilising scheme because it would help "our land." I hope that in the further Debates on the Bill that phrase will not be used. The land is not our land at all, and if hon. Members will, in future, refer simply to the land and leave out the word "our" I shall be much more peaceable in my mind in listening to these discussions. It


is one of those subtle little terms which we hear from time to time when we are asked to do something for "our land" or "our agriculture." Whose land is it, and whose agriculture is it? You will find that out when the rent collector comes round. Let us, therefore, drop this cant about "cur land" and speak about the land directly without this kind of sentimental patriotic humbug which does not mean anything. I would be willing to spend millions on fertilising the land if it were, in fact, the land of the people of this country. I would support this Clause and almost every Clause in the Bill if I knew that the land would be enhanced in productivity thereby, and that the advantage would redound, not to individual owners, but to the general commonwealth of the State.

5.4 P.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Committee will not expect me, in replying to the Debate upon this Clause, to deal with the larger question of the ownership of land.

Mr. MacLaren: Why not?

Mr. Morrison: I think if I attempted to do so there would be an indication from the Chair that this was hardly the occasion for a Debate of such far-reaching importance. But I ask the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) to forgive some of my hon. Friends and myself if in the course of the discussions on these proposals we have occasionally been guilty of what he considers to be a verbal infelicity in using the term "our land." I think the phrase has been used only in a general sense, in the same way as we speak occasionally of "our railways" and "our coal mines" and other national institutions in which, although we do not possess any legal right of property in them, we take a natural interest, being proud of their success or concerned about the possibility of their failure as the case may be.
I think the mind of man is so peculiarly constituted that he frequently considers these matters apart from merely possessive considerations and the narrow property aspect, and it is legitimate, even for an hon. Member like myself who does not own any land to take a certain amount of interest in the land of the country and to take pains, as far as he can, to improve it. The

real broad commonsense point in this discussion, it appears to me, is this: No one can say that the objects of this Clause are not of public importance. It is true that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) did not appear to see very much to the advantage of the public in these proposals, but let me remind him of the Defence aspect of the question. There was a campaign in favour of greater cultivation of the land during the War but although that campaign was initiated fairly early in the War it did not yield results of value until the War was nearly over. The reason was that the land had been in such a poor condition to start with. I am sure no one is so pacifically inclined that he would not like to see the native resources of our land for the production of food in a better condition than that, and surely it is to the public advantage, if some result of that kind can be achieved.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) asked one or two specific questions to which I shall endeavour to reply. I cannot give him any further information about the prices of lime and slag beyond the particulars which I have already given to the Committee and to the House. With regard to the rebate for sales in the months of July and August, I think the position is that some of the trade, in fixing prices, give such a rebate, very much in the way that a coal merchant gives a rebate during the summer months so as to spread the trade more evenly over the year and induce people to buy at a time when normally they would not buy. The public announcement of these proposals for the assistance of purchasers has naturally upset the normal routine of the trade in these two commodities. Potential buyers are naturally holding off the market until this Bill becomes law and its advantages to them become accessible, but as far as I know this rebate—the only one which will matter—will probably be allowed as before. As regards the question of slag, we have a 12 months arrangement, and the position will be reviewed at the end of that time. Judging by the course of the proceedings on the Bill so far, July and August are not likely to be affected, and I think the position will be the same.
A question has also been asked about the quality of the lime to be used on


the soil. That is a matter of some importance and some detail. There is no doubt that to secure the best results from the lime it must be applied with the help of scientific knowledge and advice. Various grades and qualities of lime and various combinations of calcium are suitable for various conditions, and it is our hope and intention that the scientific information which is available through county agricultural organisers will be drawn upon largely by the farming community so as to ensure that the lime is applied to the best advantage and that the appropriate grades and qualities are used in every case. I hope I have said enough to commend the Clause to the Committee. It is the foundation of the Government's proposals on this aspect of the matter and I think it will be abundantly justified by its results.

CLAUSE 2.—(Land Fertility Committee.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.9 p.m.

Sir R. Ross: As regards the committee which is to be constituted under this Clause and of which the four members and the chairman are to be nominated by the Minister, I do not know what will be the grounds of selection but I make this suggestion to the Minister. If, in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, he finds that the Northern Ireland Minister thinks that there will be problems specially connected with Northern Ireland which are distinguishable from the normal problems of the other island, will the right hon. Gentleman have, as one of the members of the committee a person acquainted with the situation of agriculture in Northern Ireland? I do not want a positive assurance from the Minister but I ask him to give consideration to that suggestion.

Mr. Morrison: indicated assent.

CLAUSE 3.—(Supplementary provisions as to contents of the Land Fertility Scheme.)

5.10 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, to leave out paragraph (a).

The Chairman: I ought to direct attention to the next Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Bridgewater (Mr. Croom-Johnson)—in page 3, line 6, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the scheme shall include provision for a right of appeal by any person aggrieved on the ground that he has not been approved as a supplier to such body and in such manner as shall be laid down in the scheme.
I think it would be convenient to discuss these two Amendments together and then, if necessary, the second Amendment can be put, without discussion, for the decision of the Committee.

Mr. Williams: I move this Amendment in consistency with the action which I have taken on many Bills in the last few years when those Bills were designed to enable somebody to say to somebody else, "Thou shalt not work in this or that occupation." I believe in the preservation of the principle of freedom. Every citizen should be entitled to his chance in any industry or profession in which he likes to engage. Until recently he was so entitled. One could enter even the professions of medicine or the law, subject to certain qualifications and the observance of certain rules of behaviour. This paragraph provides that the scheme may prohibit the payment of contributions in respect of lime or basic slag purchased from any person other than an approved supplier. Clearly the scheme will lay down the conditions under which a person may become an approved supplier, but certain persons who have been in this business before may be deprived of the status of approved suppliers. That, I think, is wrong.
On the other hand, I realise that if we grant subsidies in respect of certain commodities those commodities will need to be carefully defined according to certain standards, percentages and so forth. Accordingly there may be people who will not apply the scheme, and the appropriate penalty on such people is that they should be taken off the list. In that case, the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) may be a better solution than my proposal. My proposal is that in no circumstances shall anybody be entitled to decide by whom this subsidised material is to be supplied. I am indifferent as to the form in which the rights of the individual are protected, as long as they are protected, but I want to


make sure that we are not putting out of business a number of perfectly innocent ordinary citizens who are trying to earn their living.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Croom-Johnson: I am opposed to the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), and the reason why I am opposed to it is, first of all, that this scheme is to provide for the distribution of public money, and accordingly it seems to me that there must be some safeguard under the scheme as to whose hands the money goes through. There is a second ground, which, from the agricultural point of view, I am informed, is much more serious, namely, that the term "lime" does not necessarily mean the same thing in every place, neither does it mean that every farm or holding will be benefited by the kind of production which would be of great assistance even to a neighbouring farm, much less so to a farm or farms in neighbouring counties. Accordingly, it is of the most vital importance, not merely that the individual to whom the money goes should be, from that point of view, an individual of whom, broadly speaking, we may approve but we want to be certain that the commodity which he supplies is supplied in accordance with the necessities of the particular farm or holding on which the stuff is to be put on the land. I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that there is the possibility, to say no more, where public money is involved, that you might conceivably, in no doubt very rare instances, get cases in which an inferior article has been supplied, it may be by some agreement or shutting of the eyes, and there may be some possibility of public money not really achieving the object for which it has been voted. I do not think that that would be a very frequent instance, but the scheme must, I submit, deal with such a possibility, and if my hon. Friend succeeded in getting this paragraph cut out, that danger would not be safeguarded at all. That being so, I am, as I have said, opposed to this Amendment.
But there is a case, I think, for seeing that the individual who is not put on the approved list has some sort of protection. Again, this may be a very rare instance, but one must visualise the possibility, for example, of a small corn

chandler in a country town finding himself not on the approved list. The word will get round in a moment of time, and he will not be able, perhaps, to succeed in carrying on the rest of his business because it is known that he is not on the approved list for one particular commodity, and as a result of this people will look down their noses at him, or even, as a pure matter of convenience, desiring to have one supplier for all the things of the type which they are going to use instead of two or three, they will take their custom elsewhere. In those circumstances I have put down an Amendment in an attempt to meet the difficulty. I have purposely put it down without saying in terms to whom such an appeal ought to go, again for two reasons. The first is because, possibly, when the scheme has been drawn up and considered in great detail, it may be that the appeal tribunal would be a different tribunal in different districts or different parts of the country, but also for another reason.
I suggest that possibly the Minister himself may examine this question of an appeal and see whether we should have an appeal throughout the country to the same tribunal, and, if so, I would suggest that the appeal should be to the agricultural committees which were set up under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1923. Those Members of the House who are interested in those bodies will see, if they look at Section 57 and other Sections of that Act, that there is one difficulty. I understand that in some counties there is no agricultural committee, and in those circumstances it may be that the appropriate tribunal to consider appeals would be the Minister himself. I put those two points for consideration. I hope sincerely that the Committee will not pass the Amendment of my hon. Friend and that favourable consideration may be given in due course to my Amendment.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Holdsworth: I hope the Minister will accept one or other of these Amendments. The principle which we are continually laying down in this House as to the restriction of a person's freedom to buy and sell what he likes is getting us into a very dangerous position. We have had questions only to-day about cases in which we are taking away, bit by bit, a person's freedom. I read a speech the other day by the hon. Member for


Elland (Mr. Levy), talking about all these boards that have been set up and asking what it would be like under a Socialist Government. It would be impossible under any Socialist Government for them to create more hoards than has been created during the past six years, or more restrictions on individual freedom. No Socialist Government would do it. There is less danger of their doing it than we have found during the past six years. Here we have another case of saying that "A" shall be able to sell lime and basic slag, but that "B" shall not. I remember raising a question about the producers of potatoes, and we caused a storm in the country over it. Licences were taken away from men who for 30 years had been conducting a legitimate business.
I am not convinced. even by the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson), and I appreciate his point that where public money is being given away you should perhaps have some sort of control, but I am not certain that control will make even for efficiency of distribution or for cheapness of the material. It does not by any means follow that because you have got control you will get cheap prices. I am still an individualist, and I still believe in competition, because it gives you greater efficiency and, in the end, the cheapest price. Very often, outside this Chamber, people say, "Holdsworth, you are quite right," but when the bell rings, all, like a flock of sheep, follow the Government. In fact, I think that more and more this House is developing, as I said the other day, into a complete set of automata. Let us have some provision here to prevent the possibility of cases arising in which, because a man has not got curly hair, for example, he is crossed off the list for providing lime or basic slag. I take the opportunity every time, there is a further restriction of private enterprise, of sounding a warning note that, although we express pious sentiments about freedom and time and time again protest about dictatorships in other countries, we are really becoming the slaves in this country of a bureaucracy.
Week after week we are proving it on almost every subject that comes up. You will find restriction after restriction, and here are the people who conduct elec-

tions and say, "For Heaven's sake, send us back to Parliament to safeguard democracy and freedom against the bureaucracy of Socialism." I agree with the sentiment, but let us be sincere in what we say, and follow it up. I have a great admiration for the Minister of Agriculture, and I have read many of his speeches challenging the autocracy that would be created by a Socialist Government, but let him make a little practical contribution to the theories that he has preached and at least accept one of these two Amendments.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I think, if I may say so, it was a convenient course that you suggested, Sir Dennis, that we should discuss these two Amendments together, because, although their subject-matter is not exactly identical, yet at the same time they cover a certain amount of the same ground. I find it to be a very favourable omen for the success of the Bill, which aims at increasing the fertility of the soil, that somehow or other no Amendment can be moved without the discussion on it branching out and proliferating into a variety of far-reaching economic arguments. We have had, for example, from the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) a warning note which has been uttered with serious emphasis for some time by him. He does manage to combine, in a way which is peculiar to himself and his hon. Friends, a desire for securing Government assistance with a dislike of the machinery by which alone that can be effected.

Mr. Holdsworth: I am speaking for myself, but let me say that I have never voted for one penny of subsidy out of public funds for anything since I have been in Parliament.

Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Member will consider the various meanings of the word "subsidy," I think he will find that by this tenet of his he has precluded himself from voting for something like 80 per cent. of the legislation which has been passed by this House during the past 20 or 30 years. I appreciate his stubborn independence and his desire to see the freedom and independence of the individual maintained, a desire for which has also been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams). It would be a bad day for us if


that independence ceased to survive in our midst, but 1 would also state that the economic conditions in this country and in the world at large have altered very considerably in certain important respects since the doctrine of which he is so eloquent an exponent first became popular. The fact is that control in many branches of Government activity is absolutely necessary. There is always a variety of people who would like to control things, whether they be agents of the State, as here, or other persons, and we find it in this case clearly necessary, as is recognised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson), that if we are to have assistance from public funds, there should be some machinery for seeing that it is dispensed in a frugal and honest fashion.
For that reason, I feel that I could not accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon, but at the same time I think there is a great deal in the case that has been put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater. I think there might arise, in exceptional circumstances, some possibility of injustice or grievance if a man were removed from the approved list of suppliers for no proper cause, either through inadvertence or in some other way. The Clause itself gives power for the scheme to contain proper appeal provisions, because it states that the scheme may:
prescribe the conditions subject to which persons may become or cease to be approved suppliers.
It is easy under the shelter of those words to provide some proper method of appeal. My hon. and learned Friend is, I think, conscious of the difficulty of saying at this stage what the proper method of appeal should be. I gladly undertake that in the scheme there shall be provisions for an appeal of some sort. I should favour an appeal to the Minister in all cases, for he is responsible to Parliament. If a person is improperly left out of the list of approved suppliers, he should have the right of appeal to a Member of this House who is responsible to Parliament, so that there shall be adequate publicity given to the case and the reasons for the decision can be justified on their merits.

Mr. Macquisten: Does that mean that it may be left to the Minister's subordinates?

Mr. Morrison: It is not a question of subordinates at all. What I apprehend will happen is this: It is intended that any supplier of these materials who is prepared to abide by the understanding as to price shall be entitled to be an approved supplier. There is no question of excluding anyone on any ground except that he is not conforming to the arrangements, for example, by holding up the price too high, or for some other reason of a commercial character. In case there should be anything of this kind I think that it would be wise to provide an appeal to some authority to secure the ventilation of the facts and to secure that nothing is done in the darkness or round the corner, but that everything is administered openly in the public interest.

Mr. Croom-Johnson: Will my right hon. Friend consider the desirability of putting in on the Report stage some words which will draw the attention of those who will draft the scheme to the fact that a right of appeal ought to be contained in the scheme itself. The words to which the Minister has called attention are very wide, and even a little vague, and if there could be words inserted at a later stage to include the right of appeal there will be no danger of that right being overlooked by anybody when the scheme is drafted.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Foot: While we appreciate the reply of the Minister, there is a further suggestion that I would like to make. The Minister has given us to understand that he may favour an appeal to the Minister, but before there can be an appeal there must, of course, be a tribunal of first instance. That is to say, the appeal must be from either the Fertility Committee or a branch of the committee. Will it not be possible to include in this scheme not only provisions for an appeal to the Minister or to some other suitable tribunal, but some procedure whereby, before a question of appeal arises, any person whose right to be an approved supplier is in question shall have the opportunity of being heard by the committee or the tribunal of first instance, whichever it may be. It will be unfortunate if we have the kind of procedure in which a man may find himself in the position of being suddenly struck off the list or not put on the list without any reason given for it, and he may


have to incur the trouble and even possible expense of an appeal to the Minister.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I will gladly consider what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) has said, but my view remains that the words are wide enough to enable this provision to be made, and I have undertaken to see that it shall be in the scheme. With regard to the point of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), I would urge him not to take too legalistic a view of the problem. I do not think that it is a question of appearing before a tribunal of first instance and a tribunal of second instance and so on. What I anticipate will happen is that a man will apply in the ordinary way to the committee, and if they do not answer his letter, or if they tell him they will not put him on the list, he can have the right of going to someone else and pointing out the reasons why he should be on the list. That is what I have promised should be done.

Mr. Foot: He might be given a statement of the reasons why he is not put on the list.

Mr. Morrison: That would be a matter for consideration in due course. The object we have in mind is to ensure that no injustice is done.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: It seems that the Minister has gone some way to meet the grievance of hon. Members who have put down these Amendments, but what is worrying me is how far the House will be informed by the Report stage of the exact words which are to be used. Under a subsequent Sub-section all these schemes or regulations will merely be laid before Parliament and will become operative within 28 days unless there is an annulling resolution. The Minister is aware that in that procedure it is impossible to get an Amendment made which may be vital to those of us who want to secure that in the selling of these things for private profit the regulations are not used to set up monopolies. It is the setting up of monopolies for private profit that we object to, and not the regulation of an industry that requires regulation. If we are to be able to check

such monopolies we ought to have the thing properly safeguarded before the Bill leaves the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that on the Report stage he will tell us exactly what are the words he proposes to put in the regulations?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: All I can undertake to do is what I have said that I will do. I will gladly see between now and the Report stage whether any additional words are required in the Bill. My own view is that they are not, but I will undertake to secure that there shall be an appeal to the Minister.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I have been converted by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson), that his Amendment is better than mine, and I will ask leave to withdraw mine. I am not satisfied, however, that the Minister has decided on the right course. I would press him to put words in the Statute to make sure that there is no doubt. The assurance which he has given us is only binding on him, for it cannot bind his successor in the drafting of the regulations. It is not enough that he should give an assurance that he will make sure there is a right of appeal in the scheme. We must have words in the Statute which make it clear that there shall be a right of appeal, and I would strongly urge my right hon. Friend to do that on the Report stage. I rather gather he will consider doing that, and having regard to that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, after "information," to insert:
including the cost of production and distribution.
In moving this Amendment I have not in mind so much the case of basic slag as that of lime. The two things are produced in different ways. Basic slag is produced by mass production by large firms and is sold over large areas at much the same price irrespective of the distance from the point of origin. It will be easy for the Fertility Committee to come to a conclusion as to what is a reasonable price for basic slag, and I take it that it will be roughly one price for the whole


country, with allowances for differences in cost of carriage. That is not the position with regard to lime. I move the Amendment with a view to asking the Minister in what way he envisages the fixing of the price above which a subsidy will not be payable. Does he intend to fix a national price? If that is his intention, there is no doubt that price will very soon tend to become the minimum price at which lime in its various grades will be sold to the farmer.
Lime is a bulky article, and for that and other reasons it is manufactured reasonably near to the point at which it must be consumed. It is, in fact, a local rather than a national trade. Does the Minister anticipate that the price for lime will be fixed locally? If so, on what basis will it be fixed, because the cost of production in different districts varies enormously? The type of raw material varies, the method which is applicable varies with the variation in the raw material, and the cost of materials also varies. I would like to ask the Minister, therefore, in the interest of economy on the part of the State and in the interest of farmers, whether it is proposed to work in fairly small areas or whether it is proposed that the prices shall be fixed for large areas or even the whole country? There are rapid developments taking place in the production of lime, and it is possible that with new appliances the costs will be reduced considerably. For these reasons I ask the Minister how he anticipates that the maximum, which will certainly become the minimum price, is likely to be fixed?

5.44 P.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I appreciate the point of the hon. Member's Amendment and his desire to prevent any undue rise in the price of lime, which desire we profoundly share. He will see that paragraph (b) of the first Sub-section says that the Fertility Committee may prescribe conditions as to the furnishing of information and the production of accounts, books and other documents. These words are wide enough to cover the point which the hon. Member has in mind. The words he suggests are really unnecessary in view of the general terms of the Sub-section. As he knows, there is always the danger, when inserting other words, of producing a result different from that which was intended, and it might

limit the effect of the Clause instead of extending it. The actual object of the Clause is to give protection against prices rising above the level which we have negotiated. As my right hon. Friend has said previously, an agreement has been reached to proceed on the basis of 1st May prices, and approved suppliers will clearly have to supply at those prices. When the hon. Member asks me whether it is a national price or a local price, I would remind him that there are many grades of lime, varying not only in chemical content but also according to whether the lime is ground or in lump, burned, slaked and so forth, and that is a matter which we ought to leave to the Land Fertility Committee to deal with.
I do not think we could have a schedule of these prices in an Act of Parliament; we must leave it to the Fertility Committee, bearing in mind that the 1st May prices are to be the stable point for the time being. If any suppliers do not satisfy the Land Fertility Committee that they are complying with the undertaking, then such suppliers will run the risk of being removed from the approved list, and would lose all sympathy in being; so removed. I hope the hon. Member will be content with this explanation and realise that we have here a common-sense and satisfactory way of dealing with the matter. Our object is precisely his object, and I think it will be achieved under the wording of the Clause as it stands and the arrangements we have made. He also wishes that information should be obtained about the cost of distribution. That is a difficult matter, depending on road or rail haulage charges, or farm cart distribution, and it might involve a long investigation. I understand his point is covered by the general character of this Clause, and as he realises, I hope that we have the same objects in view, I trust that he will not see fit to press the Amendment.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Paling: I am inclined to agree that the words of the Clause are sufficient to enable us to get all the information required, but I rather gather from the Minister that so long as prices remain as they are and do not go up nothing will happen, because there will be no reason to ask for the information. But what is to happen if there is a huge increase in production and the price of lime goes down? If in 12 months time the production has


doubled itself, is it not reasonable to suppose that the price will go down? In that case will the Land Fertility Committee have power to ask for information, to ask for the accounts of the suppliers and to call for a reduction in the price of lime below the figure of 1st May?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I do not take the view that the fixing of prices on the 1st May level fixes them for ever. I think that the power given in this Clause to obtain information from the accounts, and so forth, will give the Land Fertility Committee access to the prices of the approved suppliers, and that it is legitimate to say that in the event of the price of lime falling, or certain suppliers quoting a lower range of prices, the Fertility Committee would have power to negotiate fresh terms. There is nothing in the Bill which will tie us for all time to the particular prices of 1st May. At the same time we must remember that if charges for fuel and labour go up it will be equally competent for the approved suppliers to put forward a case that they cannot maintain the 1st May prices; but whether they succeed or whether they do not we do not take the 1st May prices as being fixed indefinitely.

Mr. W. Roberts: In view of what the Minister has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.52 p.m.

Sir F. Acland: I beg to move, in page 3, line 40, after "slag," to insert "other than lime contained in sea-sand."
Although I am formally moving this Amendment I do not think I shall need to trouble the Committee with it if the Minister can give me an assurance that the words in the Bill which refer to lime "produced outside the United Kingdom" will not apply to sea-sand. That is technically produced outside the United Kingdom, though not outside territorial limits. It is mostly sea shells, is sand rich in calcium carbonate.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I think I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks. I do not think he wants to go collecting sand on the Dogger Bank. That being so I can give him the assurance he wishes.

Sir F. Acland: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I beg to move, in page 4, line 2, to leave out from "promoting," to the first "of," in line 4, and to insert:
a survey of grassland, including rough grazings, to ascertain the needs of such land for drainage, improvement by manuring including the use of lime and basic slag or by ploughing of and reseeding with suitable grass seeds and for research, investigation, and instruction as to the best means.
I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to this Amendment, because it covers something more than a mere change of words. The policy outlined in the first part of the Bill has been heralded as a great policy which will revive the fertility of our land. The problem of grassland is a very great problem in this country, but in this Bill we are dealing with a very small section of the problem as a whole. We are dealing with the results of scientific work which was done about 50 years ago. Since that time a great deal more scientific work has been done in connection with the improvement of grassland. The value of slag was really established by Professor Somerville and Professor Gilchrist in experiments in Northumberland in the 'eighties or 'nineties. This Bill does something to encourage the use of basic slag, which was demonstrated 50 years ago to be very desirable, but since then there has been the work done at Cambridge on the nutritional value of certain types of grass and the work done at Aberystwyth by Professor Stapledon, whose work has really revolutionised the whole of grassland farming.
The reason I have put down this Amendment is that I should have been out of order if I had tried to introduce into this thin and shadowy Bill, thin and shadowy as a means of establishing grassland fertility on a sound basis, such as is outlined by Professor Stapledon, any proposals which would have made this into an "Aberystwyth Bill" if I may call it that; but one can at least suggest that the Land Fertility Committee should not be merely a publicity agent for lime and slag, though that is what it is as the Bill stands at present. It has got to sell more lime and slag, it has to promote research, investigation and instruction in the use of lime and basic slag as a means of promoting the fertility of the soil. I want that com-


mittee to be given a great deal wider scope. I hope they will start by increasing the fertility of the ideas on the Government Front Bench, and that they will be working on ideas of how the fertility of grassland can be developed by a more forward policy than that which is outlined. I am not asking for a larger contribution than is already provided in the Clause. I do not know what the estimate of the Minister is as to the amount of money which will be provided by this levy, though it cannot be very much.
A survey is what is required at the present time. A great number of partial surveys are being carried out. Professor Stapledon has undertaken one in Wales, which is of value as far as it goes. A survey has also been made recently by private initiative and at private expense in the northern counties. I do hope, therefore, that it will be possible to allow the Land Fertility Committee much wider scope than they would have under the present terms of the Bill. I will not go into details, but as the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) said on Second Reading, we must first drain the land if we are to use lime or slag at all, and we require some more intimate knowledge of what land requires drainage. Secondly, we have to ascertain the needs of the land for a more radical policy of liming and dressing with basic slag. I have tried both.
The liming-slagging policy is an exceedingly slow way of improving fertility, but the Stapledon method of ploughing up and reseeding with heavy green seed is a very much faster and better way. Liming and slagging will do something, but there are now tractors for breaking up moorland which will make a revolution. I can give one example from Aberystwyth where, 800 feet above sea level, there is cultivated land, which was moorland a few years ago. These things can be done, and the improvement of grassland fertility furthered. I ask the Minister to accept the alterations in the wording of the Clause.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I hope that, whatever happens, the Minister will have nothing to do with the Amendment, which asks for a survey. We know that there are types of mind which imagine that if you have a survey of a thing

you can solve the problem. If the Amendment were agreed to, we should first of all have a survey and then, presumably, a report. It would take a long time and a nice lot of officials, and then you would do something. The words which the Amendment wishes to cut out are such as will immediately get more research, more investigation and more instruction as to the use of lime. The Amendment, as it stands, would mean only delay. Some people cannot help delaying things, and wishing to delay them. In the Bill, the Minister is actively providing instructions in the use of lime and doing everything to help it. For that reason, I hope that nothing will induce the Minister to give way to the very seductive speech, which, whatever else it might do, would take us still further from the prompt action which the Government are taking so well in other ways.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Price: I fail to see why this Amendment should not be accepted nor why the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) should say that it is not likely to assist the scheme of the Bill. Surely a survey could go hand in hand with the general scheme of the Government's policy. The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) has done a useful thing in calling the attention of the Committee to the importance of grassland survey. I am particularly interested in the words at the end of the Amendment:
and for research, investigation, and instruction as to the best means.
All that is very important, because whether it is slag, lime or superphosphates, unless the land is treated in a certain way, the best results will not be obtained. There is no doubt that the cultivation of pasture is now as scientific as the cultivation of arable land. The breaking up of the grassland at certain times of the year is all-important for airing the heated layers of the soil. Unless that is done, no matter how much lime you put upon the land, you will not have the proper effect. Research, investigation and information, more and more widespread, as to the proper means by which cultivation takes place, are all-important. All good farmers follow a regular process in this matter. They use basic slag, then they tooth-harrow the ground, and very often cross-harrow in


January or February, then they give it a top dressing, and, finally, they roll. It is very important to continue research and the spreading of information about the land of this country, along with the county council agricultural committees, who are doing excellent work on those lines.
I am not so enamoured of the idea of the widespread application of Professor Stapledon's methods to the whole country or about ploughing up grassland that has been down since the Middle Ages or Tudor times. It does not seem to me to be a very wise move. No doubt there are many barren uplands which could be treated in that way, but even so one has yet to know what the cost of production is and the cost of maintaining land in this condition, and whether the returns are worth while. For all that, I am glad that the hon. Member has raised the point, and I hope that the Government will consider it.

6.8 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) is seeking to impose a lengthy and burdensome task on the Land Fertility Committee. I could not help thinking that if, for example, the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) had grassland, and the Committee came and made a survey of it and told him his needs in regard to drainage and for improving the land by manuring, and gave him advice as to the best means of reseeding with suitable grass seeds, and all the rest of it, he might almost have reason to object to the bureaucratic methods of the Committee, and he would probably feel, as many of us would feel, that research and investigation are very much more likely to get results by the adoption of the method of Professor Stapledon at Aberystwyth than by such methods as that. The hon. Member's methods would not be appropriate, precisely for that reason which would most exactly appeal to the hon. Member for South Bradford, that there is here no money subsidy involved at all and no payment from public funds. The money is to be collected by a levy, which may be anything up to 2d. per ton from the approved suppliers who are producers of lime and basic slag and from persons receiving contributions under this part of the Act.
The hon. Member asked me how much we expected would be got from the levy. We do not think it will ever be likely to exceed £10,000. For that money you could not do very much in the way of a survey of the grassland of the country, and if you could, I think the Committee would agree that it would not be fair on the individuals who had paid the levy and who were primarily concerned about liming and slagging, that the money which they had contributed should now be used for very much wider purposes. I think it is better that the Committee should be given this limited task to concentrate upon and not to be sent about all over the country to make every kind of suggestion. We should give them this limited sum for this limited purpose.

Amendment negatived.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in page 4, line 18, to leave out from "Treasury," to the end of the Clause, and to insert:
and any such scheme shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of twenty-eight days from the date on which it is made, unless at some time before the expiration of that period it has been approved by resolution passed by each House of Parliament, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new scheme.
I do not want to take more melodramatically than is justified the constitutional point which I think to be involved in the Amendment, especially as earlier the House showed some slight tendency to be melodramatic about a point of whose importance and even existence I do not think one could be quite certain. The object of Part I of the Bill is to authorise an indefinite amount of money to be spent for an indefinite amount of slag and lime, to fix the conditions upon which anyone may or may not deal in those commodities, including conditions about prices and inspection of books, to discourage almost to the point of prohibition their importation and to do other things, especially under paragraph (1) which are very vague. Very wide and loose powers are being hereby delegated to the Minister.
For the purposes of my argument it does not matter in the least whether this is the best of all conceivable Ministries and, in this Ministry, the Minister of Agriculture is the flower of that lily-white flock. We could entirely trust the discretion and the good intentions of the present Minis-


ter; how little that matters was shown by the earlier Debate; for instance, when the Minister told us that it was difficult here and now to say what sort of appeal there should be, or when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) was very anxious for more details, in an apparently laudable desire that the co-operative societies should not get a monopoly of selling these things, as in some parts of the country they have of buying milk, I do not think it is logically clear that powers so wide and loose as these must necessarily either be delegated or be not delegated. The thing is not so absolute.
There is the question "sub modo?" —under what conditions the thing ought to be done. If one looks at earlier Statutes dealing with more or less similar matters, one finds three sorts of general conditions which might be imposed in circumstances of this kind. The first is that the Minister can start his scheme, and, once it is started, it runs on unless either House passes a negative Resolution. That is the method of the Bill as drafted. And now this also. I assume that these schemes would not come within the scope of the Rules Publication Act, because the Minister will not be issuing rules, but a scheme. One of the ways in which House of Commons control is disappearing is, if I may borrow the expression used by the Minister earlier, the proliferation of new verbalisms. Orders and regulations are nowadays replaced by schemes, and arrangements, and devices, and heaven knows what. Under the Bill as drafted the scheme runs on indefinitely unless the House at any moment says "Stop." The second possible method is that we might have roughly the conditions which are required by the Agricultural Marketing Acts, under which draft schemes are laid before the House, and remain merely draft schemes, becoming effective only if an affirmative Resolution is passed. There is, no doubt, a number of sub-varieties, but in general the third possible method is that suggested in my Amendment. I am quite prepared to believe that, as it stands, the Amendment possibly might not do. For instance, some words might be needed saying that the 28 days should be Parliamentary days, and, in view of the particular date

that we have now reached in the Parliamentary and farming year, it might require that or other alteration; but the general point is that, while it would still give the Minister the practical certainty of getting his scheme, it would at least necessitate some Parliamentary co-operation in the scheme beyond the mere passing of the Bill after half a day's Debate on Second Reading and a day's Committee discussion. It would give Parliament some control over the scheme, and not merely over the making of the scheme possible.
Of the three possible modes in which the Minister might be authorised to legislate in a delegated way, perhaps the second, namely, that of the Agricultural Marketing Acts, would be the most logical in this case; but I think there might be an official answer to the effect that that would be hardly feasible without such delay as would, owing to the date we have reached in the farming year, mean postponing the operation of the scheme for a year. Therefore, I put down the third form, which I copied, with insignificant verbal alterations, from the Import Duties Act. The general principle is that, when powers of legislation, and, indirectly, as we have seen from what was said earlier this afternoon, of taxation, are being entrusted to a Minister with only the minimum general conditions, as laid down in this Bill, the House ought to insist upon a specific explanation why such an extremely small amount of Parliamentary control is appropriate in that particular case. The necessity for some such explanation seems to me to go to the root of the acceptability of a Bill as a whole, and, therefore, might perhaps in a way be more appropriate to a Second Reading Debate; but when for any reason that case has not been developed on Second Reading, the only method that seems to he left to us is to put down some such Amendment as this, in order that the Minister may have an opportunity of explaining why, in the case of any particular Bill, the minimum of Parliamentary control is appropriate. Unless we are convinced that the minimum is appropriate, we ought to insist upon more than the minimum.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: This is a very old point; it has been debated ten thousand times in this Chamber, and I do not intend to occupy more than a very few


moments in putting my point of view with regard to it. I should be quite happy with the negative Resolution as provided in Sub-section (2), but for the fact that national funds are being made available for private purposes. There may be a subsidy of £1,000,000 per annum, or £1,500,000, or some figure of that order, and for that reason private Members are entitled on occasion at least to express a point of view with regard to a scheme which has been produced by a committee set up by the Minister. The scheme may be a very good one, or it may be less good, but in any case Parliamentary control, in the last analysis, is right and proper, and I think that, wherever Treasury money is being handed to private firms, for no matter what purpose or object, it is proper that Parliament should retain some measure of control. I know the right hon. Gentleman will say that Parliament still retains control, since within 28 days a prayer can be offered against the scheme; but that is a most ineffective method, since these prayers always come on after 11 p.m., which is a very inappropriate moment at which to discuss financial business. For that reason I think that, while we are continuing to hand out subsidies for this, that or the other purpose, which may be good, bad or indifferent, at least such control as Parliament can preserve to itself ought to be preserved. For these reasons I shall be quite willing to support the Amendment.

6.25 p.m.

Sir John Withers: I, also, desire to support the Amendment. I do not suggest for a moment that the Minister of Agriculture is a dictator in disguise, but I certainly think that this is a matter which ought to be very carefully looked at by Parliament. If a prayer is laid on the Table, as a rule no notice is taken of it, and I think that, when it is a question of the expenditure of public money, an affirmative Resolution ought to be necessary.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Foot: The issue that we have to decide on this Amendment, which I support, is whether the House should demand an affirmative Resolution before the scheme can come into effect, or whether we should be content with the negative Resolution proposed in the Bill. Both procedures are, of course, familiar to us.

Both occur in a number of Statutes, and we should all agree that this is a question which must be decided in each case on its merits according to the importance of the particular scheme. But I think the House can seldom have seen a case in which it was more obviously desirable that we should demand an affirmative Resolution. As everyone realises, the scheme that is to be made under this Clause will be very far-reaching.
It will involve, first, the payment of public money in unlimited quantities—because no limit is mentioned in the Clause; secondly, it will involve a determination of who shall and who shall not be entitled to carry on the occupation or business of a supplier of these commodities; and, thirdly, as the Mover of the Amendment pointed out, in paragraph (f) there is power to prohibit the payment of contributions in respect of lime or basic slag produced outside the United Kingdom. If such a prohibition were put into force, it might easily amount to a complete embargo on imports, and might result in a difference between the prices of the commodity produced at home and of that produced abroad. I am not discussing whether that would be right or wrong in the circumstances, but it is a considerable power to give. I do not think that even the Import Duties Advisory Committee has power to recommend a complete embargo upon any form of imports. These are only examples which are stated in the Clause, but the Clause is what I might term a generality Clause. Its first words are:
Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this Part of the Act.
We are, therefore, proposing to set up a committee which will have very wide powers indeed, and the functions mentioned in Clause 2 of the Bill are practically unlimited. The point to which I would draw the attention of the Committee is that there is no kind of safeguard here such as is contained in the Agricultural Marketing Acts. I agree that the schemes are rather different in their nature, but the Agricultural Marketing Acts provide that, in the case of a scheme like a marketing scheme, which is going to affect a large number of people, a draft scheme must first be drawn up. Then there is an inquiry, where anybody who is concerned, or may he concerned,


by the operation of the scheme, can make their representations, and the Minister has to take those representations into account before he lays an Order before Parliament. I am not saying that this scheme would be quite in the same category as agricultural marketing schemes, but it, too, is likely to affect a large number of people, notably suppliers of lime or basic slag, and those people who will be affected will not have the safeguard that is given to other people who are affected by agricultural marketing schemes. That is another example of the very wide and general powers which it is proposed to confer by this Clause. Therefore, I submit to the Minister that this is a case in which it is obviously essential that, before the scheme can become permamently part of the law, it should receive the affirmative assent of the Houses of Parliament.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Macquisten: I support the Amendment. The Clause as it stands is an attempt to take advantage of the old maxim, "Possession is nine points of the law." It does not seem to be necessary to lay down that the scheme shall not come into operation unless this great machinery of Parliament devotes an evening to its discussion, but at any rate the scheme should be put before Parliament in such a way that it can be rejected more or less summarily. It is like "contracting in" and "contracting out" in the trade unions. In the case of the former, you are not in the soup until you are put into it, but the Bill puts you in the soup to begin with, and leaves you to get yourself out.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) has formed a different opinion from that which I hold as to the effect of this Clause upon the persons concerned. The hon. and learned Member seemed to think that this was a Clause which in some way would put the suppliers of slag "in the soup," to use his expression. I do not see how offering to pay half the cost of what a man is trying to sell can have any such effect upon him. The only conceivable way in which a man might be affected harshly would be if supplies were wrongly

withheld. It is not at all like the Marketing Act, where the majority could coerce the minority unless there was control. I agree that the question ought to be looked at on its merits to see whether or not the affirmative or negative method of proceeding is the right one. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) would admit that there is a case for a negative procedure. In some cases it is appropriate, but I think his criticisms would apply to practically any scheme to which a negative resolution procedure has been applied in the past.
Let us see how the matter stands. Let me take as my text the words of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Williams) that it is essential to keep Parliamentary control. With that I agree. Let us see how Parliamentary control may be lost. It may be lost by an excessive delegation of powers to the executive. That I would admit. It may be lost by abandoning control in a wrongful manner. But there is an equally powerful method, and that is to clutter up Parliament with intimate administrative details, absorbing its time on detailed matters and thus diverting its energy and attention from the great matters of life, liberty, public safety and justice which are, after all, its first concern. That is the justification for the delegation of legislation, in order that Parliament should not be asked to pre-occupy itself with administrative details. I would ask the Committee not to take the view that these arrangements fall within the category where an affirmative Resolution is appropriate. We cannot spend money except on lime and slag. The general lines of the fertility scheme are set forth. If you come to the last element of the problem, on which great emphasis was laid by Members supporting the Amendment, that the amount of money that can be spent is not definitely stated, it is a very common thing in legislation to say that Ministers may spend such sums as are required for this or that purpose. The check there is not in a Resolution, affirmative or negative, but the whole control of Supply which the House exercises. Any sum spent would need to appear in the Estimates and the responsible Minister could be cross-examined as to why he has spent so much. In matters of Supply, whether enough or too much money has been spent, it has its own


venerable procedure to safeguard it. That is not a question for either affirmative or negative Resolution. There is Treasury control and the control of the House by the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor-General. When one considers that the objects on which the money is spent are defined, and that all that is delegated are the merest details of the arrangement, this is a proper case for a negative Resolution.
But there is one objection to the Amendment with which I must acquaint the Committee. If I were to accept it, all this part of the Act would cease to have any effect by 28th August at the latest, because the days would have run out and there would have been no Resolution passed. The only alternative would be to delay the preparation of the scheme until we passed the Resolution some time after we reassembled. It is a practical point but one of great urgency. We want these subsidies applied this autumn, without losing a year or a harvest, which would otherwise be the case. In all the circumstances of the case it is the proper thing for us here to delegate this legislation within these limits, and let those to whom it is delegated get on with it and be responsible to Parliament in the long run, and Parliament within 28 sitting days can bring the whole thing to a conclusion if it so desires. In all the circumstances, the Committee

would be well advised not to support the Amendment.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) made it clear that he was not wedded to the exact wording and that he was prepared to accept 28 Parliamentary days, as is done in the case of Import Duties.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: The practical difficulty could be at least got over, but the Minister appears to be determined not to accept the Amendment at this stage. The real fact is that he is getting away from the ground that is really covered by the Amendment, and which really is the main reason why the hon. Member was justified in moving it. To all intents and purposes the scheme does not merely provide for a subsidy for fertility, but it makes very far-reaching marketing arrangements as far as the commodities that are to be subsidised are concerned. Before that scheme is finally put into operation there is every whit as much case for the submission of an affirmative Resolution to the House as in the case of an ordinary marketing scheme. I hope that hon. Members who have put the case to the Minister will stick to the Amendment and press it in the Lobby.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 124.

Division No. 271.]
AYES.
[6.41 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Crossley, A. C.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hannah, I. C.


Balniel, Lord
Culverwell, C. T.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hartington, Marquess of


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
De Chair, S. S.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Heilgers, captain F. F. A.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Denville, Alfred
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Drewe, C.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Blaker, Sir R.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Hepworth, J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Higgs, W. F.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Holmes, J. S.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Ellis, Sir G.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Emery, J. F.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Burghley, Lord
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Butcher, H. W.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Hutchinson, G. C.


Butler, R. A.
Fildes, Sir H.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Keeling, E. H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Furness, S. N.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Channon, H.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Latham, Sir P.


Christie, J. A.
Gledhill, G.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Leckie, J. A.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Lees-Jones, J.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Crooke, J. S.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Levy, T.




Lewis, O.
Pilkington, R.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Liddall, W. S.
Radford, E. A.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Lloyd, G. W.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Touche, G. C.


Looker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Ramsbotham, H.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Turton, R. H.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wakefield, W. W.


McKie, J. H.
Remer, J. R.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Warrender, Sir V.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Watt, G. S. H.


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wayland, Sir W. A


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Morgan, R. H.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wells, S. R.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Samuel, M. R. A.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Selley, H. R.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Munro, P.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Wragg, H.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Peake, O.
Strickland, Captain W. F.



Peat, C. U.
Tasker, Sir R. I.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Perkins, W. R. D.
Tate, Mavis C.
Mr. Cross and Mr. Grimston.


Petherick, M.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Parker, J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Price, M. P.


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pritt, D. N.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Ammon, C. G.
Holdsworth, H.
Ridley, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hopkin, D.
Riley, B.


Banfield, J. W.
Jagger, J.
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Barr, J.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bellenger, F. J.
John, W.
Rawson, G.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sanders, W. S.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kelly, W. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Burke, W. A.
Kirby, B. V.
Silkin, L.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, J. J.
Simpson, F. B.


Cluse, W. S.
Leach, W.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cocks, F. S.
Lee, F.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cove, W. G.
Leonard, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dalton, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stephen, C.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McEntee, V. La T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacLaren, A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Thorne, W.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mander, G. le M.
Tinker, J. J.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Marshall, F.
Viant, S. P.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mathers, G.
Walkden, A. G.


Frankel, D.
Maxton, J.
Walker, J.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Messer, F.
Watkins, F. C.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Milner, Major J.
Westwood, J.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Montague, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Muff, G.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Naylor, T. E.
Woods, C. S. (Finsbury)


Groves, T. E.
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harris, Sir P. A.
Paling, W.
Mr. Wilfrid Roberts and Mr. Foot.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.49 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Would the right hon. Gentleman, in a single sentence, tell us to whom the money collected under paragraph (a) will be paid? What particular

body will be set up for the purpose of spending the money, or are we to understand that, the money having been collected by the Land Fertility Committee, it will be handed over to the agricultural research station already in existence; or is it intended to set up a totally new body to deal with this money?

6.50 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I think I can answer the hon. Member. The sums to be paid under these paragraphs may be of a limited character. I take power for the Land Fertility Committee to institute researches into the use of substances. It may be that, under central supervision of this lime and basic slag, some trouble of a particularly technical character may present itself for research and investigation. I apprehend what would happen would be that, if such a problem presented itself, the Land Fertility Committee in nine cases out of every ten would employ existing research workers engaged at some station for this additional work, but it might be that, if it were a matter that would take a longer time, they would find it more convenient to engage a man for the purpose of conducting the research in this direction. I cannot visualise the future with sufficient accuracy and clearness as to be able to give a categorical answer to the question of the hon. Member, but the idea is that they should use the money in the most practical and economic fashion for the researches which might be required.

Mr. T. Williams: Are we to understand from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that once these twopences are collected the Land Fertility Committee will themselves take charge of the fund and administer it according to the arrangements set out under the scheme?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: That is so.

CLAUSE 4.—(Power of recovery in the event of excessive price.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Holdsworth: I should like to ask the Minister why this particular Clause is necessary. In Clause 3 there are powers given to prescribe the
conditions as to the furnishing of information and the production of accounts, books and other documents.
I should have thought that it would have been sufficient to ascertain the price according to the information furnished, without taking any further powers as are asked for in this Clause. What I am really worried about is that, if you fix a

maximum price, that price invariably becomes the minimum price to be charged. I should have thought that it might have been wise to have left that question, without the provision of a particular clause, in order that prices might be allowed to come down and lime or basic slag be supplied at a cheaper price. I should like to hear the explanation of the Minister as to why this Clause is inserted.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman why it has not been found possible to include in this Clause a provision that, should an approved supplier be found to charge an excessive price, he should be struck off the list of approved suppliers. I raise that point for this reason. Everybody knows that a large majority of the class of persons who will be buying these fertilisers will not be familiar with figures and books and that kind of thing, and indeed, will have little time to bother with them. The average farmer will only be able to ascertain whether or not he has been overcharged by comparing notes with his neighbours. The Minister is well acquainted with the mentality of the average farmer, and knows that there is nothing that he detests more than studying a large number of papers. I think that farmers are only less reluctant than medical men to deal with papers and documents, and they have the further disadvantage that perhaps they have not had the grounding in this sort of thing as have medical men. Therefore, I would like to see some stronger provision to protect farmers against overcharging by the suppliers of these commodities, and I hope that the Minister will see his way to put in some additional safeguard.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would say, in reply too the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), that, if prices come down below the approved prices, this Clause will be of no effect. The Clause only comes into play if a man charges more than is approved by the scheme. The reason why the power is taken in addition is that in certain cases where a man charges more than he promised to charge, the person who suffers is the occupier of the land who has paid the money. Though the offender may be struck off the list, he does not


pay the money back to the man who has been deprived of it. It is like the position after Derby Day when they fine bookmakers who have defaulted; the strong arm of Justice is a sorry consolation for those who have lost their money.

Mr. Thurtle: You do not know about these things.

Mr. Morrison: I have heard about them. I would draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) to Clause 3, Subsection (i) (b) where power is taken in the scheme to:
prescribe the conditions subject to which persons may become or cease to be approved suppliers.
That gives power to effect the further disciplinary action that he has in mind. If a man has been guilty of something of which you disapprove, he may be struck off the list of approved suppliers. The two are complementary, one with the other.

Mr. Garro Jones: May it be taken that the Minister recognises that that is a suitable course for striking a supplier off the list, and will he make provision for such Regulation to be made under Clause 3, Sub-section (1, b)?

Mr. Morrison: Every case will have to be looked at on its merits, but in general, if there is persistent overcharging, it will disqualify the man from being on the list.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I want to follow up the analogy which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned of people who are dealt with after Derby Day. I have to sit at Epsom on the Thursday after Derby Day to deal with them, and I would point out the great advantage of pursuing what is advocated here. One frequently finds that there are no prosecutors because the apprehension of the offender has caused his friends to go round and pay to the backers all the money that had been taken from them wrongfully, and ask them what grouse they have got. I suggest that if he took these people and dealt with them quite severely he might find that in order to escape some of the severity they might be willing to hand back some of their ill-gotten gains.

CLAUSE 5.—(Exclusion of contributions in assessing tenant right.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.59 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: At the beginning of the discussion to-day the criticism of Clause 1 went rather wide of the mark and into wider questions dealing with the land, but it was asserted that any improvements created in the land through the operation of the Act would place the owner of the land in a position to charge a higher rent to the user or to capitalise the advantage of soil. I would ask hon. Members to look at this Clause. There is the exclusion of any contributions in assessing tenant right. This is a gift to the owners of the land. The tenant is not able to claim any compensation of rights against the landowner in respect to anything done to his land under the Act. Hon. Members will observe that in this particular Clause words are embodied which strengthen the argument used previously in the Committee this afternoon. It is always extremely interesting to notice that, when certain arguments are used on this side of the Committee to prove that advantages attaching to the land arising out of enactments passed by this House will go into the pockets of the landowners, there is always the ready answer from the other side "That is not so." But when the landowner himself is faced with a similar situation, see what he says in this Clause, because I gather that the landowners inspired this Clause. It says, in line 37:
by reason of the improvement of the land by the addition thereto of lime or basic slag in respect of which a contribution has been made under this Part of this Act.
There is a direct admission that the adding of the lime and slag has improved the value of the land. The tenant is to be barred from claiming any value to himself in respect of this expenditure under the Bill. If the tenant cannot claim something in respect of the improvement of the land, during the time he was using it because of the slag and lime put into it at the Government's expense, I submit that the landlord has no right to gain an advantage, and this Clause should be opposed. Inasmuch as the landowner will capitalise any improvement in his land due to the expenditure under this


Bill, the tenant has as much right to claim it as the landlord. With these points of criticism, I will conclude by saying that I hope there will be a Division taken on this Clause, and a direct opposition to it.

7.3 P.m.

Mr. Riley: This Clause is certainly interesting, and it would be useful to the Committee if we could have some more precise elucidation of it by the Minister a s to what is its specific object. My Lon. Friend has given us one interpretation. Is it to protect an ingoing tenant from being saddled with an enhanced valuation because of the contribution of lime and slag? Is it to avoid, for instance, a sitting tenant who has received a contribution by way of slag and lime including that in the valuation when he goes out?

7.4 P.m.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) has a wide and deep knowledge of land valuation and the works of Henry George, but he has found himself corrected by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) on this point. Why should an ingoing tenant have to pay more because this lime has been put on the land? If the hon. Member is going to oppose this Clause, he is putting forward a most unjust position for every ingoing tenant, and the ingoing tenant will realise that not only is he wrong about the taxation of land values, but about the customs of the country.

Mr. MacLaren: If a landowner were selling the land would he capitalise the advantages under this Bill?

Mr. Turton: If the landlord is selling his land he will find that any notice given to the tenant is inoperative.

7.5 P.m.

Mr. Holdsworth: I do not think that the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) has failed to make his case. I do not think that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) is quite correct. The purpose is to protect the first turnover, but, if there is a new tenant, by this Clause you acknowledge that the land has been made better at the expense of the public. There can be no getting away from that, and what is to prevent the landlord saying to the next tenant,

"I have more valuable land here; it will produce more. Therefore pay a higher rent"? That is the case of the hon. Member for Burslem. He said that we were giving by this Bill a present to the occupier of land for which he has done nothing in return, and he sees no reason why if a present is given at the expense of the public, a distinction should be drawn between the tenant and the owner. There is nothing to prevent a landlord, in making a new agreement with a new tenant, charging a higher rent.

Mr. Turton: This Clause deals with the rights of outgoing tenants. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) shakes his head, but he knows perfectly well that the custom of the country is that ingoing tenants pay outgoing tenants for tenant right.

Mr. Holdsworth: I agree with that, but there is nothing to prevent a property owner saying to himself, "Although I have not compensated the outgoing tenant, there is nothing to prevent me from putting up the rent to the ingoing tenant."

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: Surely the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) does not cover nearly all the ground in what he says. It is common enough under the custom of the country that compensation should be paid by an ingoing tenant, but there must be many cases in the course of a year where this compensation falls to be paid by the landlord. A tenant may have been given notice to quit and there may be no question of cancelling the notice by Statute or anything of the sort. Whatever is right or wrong about the Clause, surely one of the positions with which it unquestionably deals is this. One finds that one is giving public money to improve the land of private persons. If one does not have a Clause of this kind, a tenant will be entitled to say, sometimes to the landlord, and sometimes to someone else, "I have improved your land and I want to be compensated for doing it," and this is a Clause to permit the landlord to say, "So far as the community helped you to do that, I am not going to pay you for it; I am going to put the money into my own pocket." The point is that, having


robbed the general public for the benefit of particular individuals, they are trying to decide clearly which of these individuals shall put the swag in his pocket.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: It is laid down by Section 1 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, that a tenant when he leaves a holding is entitled to obtain as compensation such sum as fairly represents the value of the improvement to an incoming tenant. We are dealing here with land where changes in tenancy take place. In these circumstances, the incoming tenant has to pay the appropriate compensation, but in the Act among the improvements which are specified are liming and the application of artificial manures to the land, and in the event of any dispute as to the value of the improvement the matter is to be referred to arbitration. If the Committee follow the advice of the hon. Members for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) and South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) they will say that a man who has spent £25 on land should be entitled to charge £50 to an incoming tenant for it. The £25 he got from the State he would also get from the incoming tenant, and the whole object of the Clause is to make it clear that when this scheme has been put in operation, when a man comes to have his tenant right assessed, you should have the outgoing tenant compensated for the value of what he himself, without the assistance of the taxpayer, has contributed to the value of the soil.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the case of a landlord taking on the land himself, and have raised questions, about the landlord's ability to charge a higher rent, and so on. This Clause does not deal with that at all. Its object is to effect justice between incoming and outgoing tenants. The larger question of the power to charge higher rents and so on is an attractive field for another discussion, and one which we may defer until a suitable opportunity arises. I think the Committee would be well advised not to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Burslem.

CLAUSE 6.—(Subsidy payments in respect of land under oats or barley.)

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Price: I beg to move, in page 5, line 4, to leave out "any of the following four years," and to insert "the year nineteen hundred and thirty-eight."
In the discussion on the Financial Resolution, it was made clear that my hon. Friends and I did not approve of the general principle of this Clause. The object of the Amendment is to give Parliament more control over the expenditure of public money for the purposes of this Clause. It is felt that there is no reason why we should allow this public money to be spent for as long a period as five years when at the present time there is no real knowledge as to how the markets of the world are to go, or what is to be the state of the oat grower during these next five years. At present there would be no subsidy payable if this Bill came into operation, because the price of oats is such a figure as would make the subsidy inoperative. It is only in Scotland that any large amount of oats is out upon the market. I believe the figure is about 40 per cent. The rest, even in Scotland, is consumed on the farm. As regards England a very much less amount, probably not more than 10 per cent., is put upon the market, the rest being consumed upon the farm. Having regard to these circumstances and the fact that most farmers are really concerned with a high price rather than a low price for oats, because oats are their feeding stuff and the cheaper they get it the better, I do not see why we should put such a liability on the Treasury for so many years in advance, without having some means by which we can review the situation from time to time.
I think that two years is an adequate period for the running of this subsidy. At the end of that time we ought to see what is the position, whether the world price of oats governing to some extent the price in this country is above or below 8s., and then we can decide what is to be done. It is very unwise to pledge public funds so many years ahead without any knowledge as to what the ultimate liability is to be. If great financiers of a past generation, such men as Mr. Gladstone, and on the Conservative side Lord Beaconsfield, could see this kind of provision put into Bills by the Government, pledging public funds in advance


without adequate control, those great statesmen and financiers would turn in their graves. For that reason, and because I think we ought to protect the interests of the general taxpayer and the public Treasury to a far greater extent than we are doing, I move the Amendment.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: This Amendment raises the whole issue of the deficiency payments on oats and barley. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will resist the Amendment. I know that the proposal is generally opposed by hon. Members opposite. I took note of an observation of the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) in which, speaking on the Money Resolution, he said:
Why, then, guarantee the price of oats? Farmers only produce oats for their own use, so why guarantee them a price when the oats are not sold except to themselves?
Later he said:
I cannot see why we ought to encourage the production of cereals, which form so small a part of the value of our agricultural produce."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1937; col. 5835, Vol. 325.]
The hon. Member who has just spoken agreed with those views. I want to put two points from the point of view of the part of the world which I represent, northeast Scotland. We do not produce oats merely for consumption on the farm. Oats is the only cereal crop that in Aberdeenshire, a great cattle raising county, we can produce at all. They can produce a little barley lower down the coast, but in my part of Aberdeenshire we cannot produce wheat and beet, which have been heavily subsidised by the State for several years past. Prior to this proposal, cheap subsidised wheat was being sold in local markets in Aberdeenshire as a feeding stuff in successful competition with the oats produced by the farmers in my part of the world. I want to say in reply to the hon. Member for the Don Valley when he declares that he cannot see why we should encourage the production of cereals, that it is essential if you are successfully and economically to breed good beef cattle, which nobody denies that we do in the north of Scotland, that you should have one white crop as part of the rotation, otherwise you cannot successfully conduct arable cultivation, and the only white crop that we can produce in my part of the world is oats. Do the hon. Member and the hon. Member

for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) think it is fair that the Government should heavily subsidise the wheat crop and refuse any subsidy on oats?

Mr. T. Williams: The Government never did subsidise wheat. It was the consumers who did that, and not the Government.

Mr. Boothby: I maintain, and shall always maintain, that that is a quibble. I never could agree that you could earmark any particular source of revenue and apply it to a particular purpose. The principle is entirely wrong. What you collect either by levies, taxes or import duties goes into the pot, and what you spend comes out of the pot, and to earmark particular revenue for a particular expenditure, as this Government and other Governments have done for the purpose of Parliamentary debate, is unsound. I agree with the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) that the simpler you can make your taxation and your expenditure the better. I believe in the principle of putting everything that you can raise from the taxpayers, in any form, into the pot, and taking your money for expenditure out of the pot. It has never struck me as fair to subsidise the grower of wheat because he lives in one part of the country and to enable him to sell his crop in competition with the farmer in the north-east of Scotland, who is just as good a farmer as the farmer in the east of England, and in some respects a better farmer. To subsidise his product with the assistance of the taxpayer in competition with the product of farmers who, merely because they live in the northeast of Scotland, can only grow oats as their cereal crop, is unfair.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows that some of us have been in this battle for a very long time past, and we are not going to allow the very modest blessing which the Government have conferred upon us to be whittled away in the slightest degree by any speeches of hon. Members opposite. I am delighted that the Government have at long last come down on the side of the hard-pressed oat growers. They might have done a bit more. I would point out that this is not technically a subsidy at all. It is an insurance, a deficiency payment. In case the price goes well below the cost of production in the future, the State has said that it will


come to the rescue of the farmers in the north-east of Scotland in order to enable them to go on producing the best beef the world has ever known. I welcome the Government's proposal as far as it goes, and for my own part, in the absence of some of my colleagues from Aberdeenshire, I say that we shall resist any attempt from the Opposition to whittle down in any way the benefit which the Government propose to give us.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: We congratulate the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) on his persistency with regard to this question since 1932. Ever since the wheat growers were subsidised indirectly by bread consumers he has been demanding a quid pro quo for Scottish farmers. He attacked, first, in 1932, a Minister of Agriculture who was a Scotsman. From 1932 to 1936 he attacked another Minister of Agriculture, who was also a Scotsman, and now he has got another Scottish Minister of Agriculture and he has succeeded, with the third Scottish Minister of Agriculture, in getting for Scotland what he has been wanting for a long time. But he has never been able to sustain any argument to justify the demand for this subsidy, guarantee or insurance, or whatever he cares to describe it, or even to justify a wheat subsidy.

The Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne): The discussion is going fairly wide, and if it is to be allowed on this Amendment it must not be repeated on the Question: "That the Clause stand part."

Mr. Williams: I should prefer to make my case on the Question "That the Clause stand part." With regard to the oats and barley subsidy, I submit that the two years' limitation proposed in the Amendment is justified on four grounds. In the first place, two years is a sufficient guarantee of insurance for any Government to give to any body of farmers, who know full well that there is a limit to the market for their particular product. It is because they themselves very largely have provided more oats than they could sell at an economic price that the price fell below what they thought it ought to be. In every conceivable case where direct or indirect subsidy has been given since 1931

the subsidy has immediately attracted to the market a greater volume of that particular commodity.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is anticipating his speech on the Question: "That the Clause stand part." He must keep strictly to the Question before the Committee.

Mr. Williams: With great respect, if you had allowed me to conclude the sentence you would have seen how relevant it was to the Amendment. I was about to declare that within two years we shall know whether or not this guarantee, or insurance, or subsidy has attracted a greater volume of oats to the market than would have been produced otherwise. That is why we say that two years' experience, if any, is as far as we ought to go at this time. I do not think that on any grounds, either because British growers of wheat have been indirectly subsidised or for any other reason, is can be argued that for five years the producers of oats should be given a guaranteed price. For that and many other reasons which I shall give on the Question: "That the Clause stand part," I think the Amendment ought to be accepted.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) pointed out that in this year no subsidy will be payable under this Clause. That does not really affect the principle of the Amendment one way or the other, because it is conceivable that the price of oats may remain at its present level for the next five years, that is, for the whole duration of the payments under the Bill. It does not really matter from the point of view of this Amendment whether the subsidy is payable at the present price or not. This is, as the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) pointed out, a policy of insurance rather than one of subsidy. I was a little surprised when the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean supported his Amendment by saying that he had no real knowledge as to how the markets are to go in the next two or three years. That is precisely the reason why we think it necessary to introduce this policy of insurance. I do not see how any amount of experience can ever give us any certainty as to the course of markets in any given time. Hon. Members will recollect what happened in 1932. The price of oats before that year had


not been bad, but suddenly enormous supplies from Germany were dumped on the market and the price fell to 13s. a quarter. Next year it recovered, but the following year it fell again. It fluctuated violently up to the present price, but the figure has been as low as 12s. or 13s. I hope that the world price of oats will never reach such depths again. In view of the experience we have had I do not think anybody can say how the price of oats will go, and this Measure is to insure the oat farmer against such uncertainty.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and other hon. Members have contended that our purpose would be sufficiently served by limiting the duration of this insurance to a maximum of two years. What is our object in giving this insurance to oat-growing farmers? It is to encourage them to grow, if not more oats than they have been growing, at least to grow that quantity which is necessary to keep their land under proper arable cultivation and that quantity which it is desirable to grow in this country to provide us with additional sources of animal foodstuffs. Certainly, in the parts of Scotland of which I know anything, if you are to keep your land in proper arable cultivation—and if it is the kind of land on which you can only grow oats and not wheat—the usual thing is to have a five or seven years' rotation. You plough up your land and get a crop of oats, the year after perhaps a crop of turnips; then oats again, followed by potatoes; the year after another crop of oats sown together with grass seed, producing a hay crop the year after. Perhaps the land will not stand more than two years under grass and has to be ploughed up again.
If these farmers have to work on a five or seven years' rotation it is not going to be of much use to tell them that the price of oats is only going to be guaranteed for two years; that is only a small proportion of the rotation. From the point of view of Defence I have very often heard it argued that we are actually importing a greater weight of animal foodstuffs than the resulting meat. If we were to regard it simply from the point of view of Defence alone it might actually pay us better not to produce any animal foodstuffs at all, because we should then need less shipping and less naval pro-

tection. At any rate it is most desirable to encourage producers of cereal foodstuffs for the next five years to provide us with a substantial increase in production.
The hon. Member concluded by saying that these proposals would cause Gladstone and Disraeli to turn in their graves. I hope he will bear that consideration permanently in mind, because I feel that if they are ever confronted with the policy of the hon. Member and his friends they would not remain stationary. As far as Disraeli is concerned, the principles for which he fought in this House, against the repeal of the Corn Laws, were similar in many ways to the policy we are introducing, because the duty on corn was a sliding scale governed by the price of wheat, when the price of wheat was high the duty was low, and when the price of wheat was low the duty was at a high level.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think we can go into questions like that on this Amendment.

Mr. Wedderburn: At any rate, the proposal will not raise the price of food to the consumer.

7.36 p.m.

Sir R. Ross: I desire to support the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) who put his case very clearly. There are other parts of the country my own constituency for example, which are in a similar position to that of the North-East of Scotland, they must grow oats in rotation, and it is perfectly true that if the Amendment was accepted it would be utterly useless from the point of view of the oat grower. He must have continuity, he must know ahead what the position is going to be, and I can assure hon. Members opposite that they need have no fear of people rushing into this business of producing oats in large quantities, because those people who will become millionaires by growing oats at 8s. a cwt. are very very few. It is not a profitable business, and the proposal of the Bill is made only with the desire of keeping the necessary crop going and giving some justice to the oat-growing parts of the country. Take the North of Ireland. Every year £250,000 goes to the wheat growers, and we cannot grow wheat in any quantities. We have to consider the position of the oat grower and the


constant fluctuation of prices. It is to avoid this that the proposal is made in the Bill. It should have been done some time ago, and in my opinion it will have good effect in those parts of the country which it is intended to
benefit.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 109.

Division No. 272.]
AYES.
[7.37 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Peake, O.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Petherick, M.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Balniel, Lord
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Radford, E. A.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Grimston, R. V.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Bossom, A. C.
Hannah, I. C.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Burghley, Lord
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Butcher, H. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Buller, R. A.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cortland, J. R. H.
Hepworth, J.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Carver, Major W. H.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Spens, W. P.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Channon, H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Christie, J. A.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Tate, Mavis C.


Clary, Sir Reginald
Hutchinson, G. C.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Train, Sir J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Keeling, E. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Cross, R. H.
Kimball, L.
Turton, R. H.


Crossley, A. C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Wakefield, W. W.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Culverwell, C. T.
Lees-Jones, J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lewis, O.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


De Chair, S. S.
Liddall, W. S.
Warrender, Sir V.


Denman, Hon. R. O.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Watt, G. S. H.


Denville, Alfred
McCorquodale, M. S.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Donner, P. W.
McKie, J. H.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Drewe, C.
Macquisten, F. A.
Wells, S. R.


Eastwood, J. F.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Ellis, Sir G.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Emery, J. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Morgan, R. H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wragg, H.


Fildes, Sir H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)



Fleming, E. L.
Munro, P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Furness, S. N.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Captain Waterhouse and Captain Dugdale.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Cocks, F. S.
Grenfell, D. R.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Adamson, W. M.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Daggar, G.
Groves, T. E.


Ammon, C. G.
Dalton, H.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Banfield, J. W.
Dobbie, W.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Barnes, A. J.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Barr, J.
Ede, J. C.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Bellenger, F. J.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Broad, F. A.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Holdsworth, H.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Frankel, D.
Jagger, J.


Burke, W. A.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Charleton, H. C.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Cluse, W. S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
John, W.




Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Muff, G.
Simpson, F. B.


Kelly, W. T.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Naylor, T. E.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Kirby, B. V.
Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees. (K'ly)


Lawson, J. J.
Paling, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Leach, W.
Parker, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Lee, F.
Parkinson, J. A.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Leonard, W.
Price, M. P.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Logan, D. G.
Pritt, D. N.
Thorne, W.


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Thurtle, E.


McEntee, V. La T.
Ridley, G.
Tinker, J. J.


Maclean, N.
Riley, B.
Viant, S. P.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Ritson, J.
Walkden, A. G.


Mander, G. le M.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Walker, J.


Marshall, F.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Watkins, F. C.


Maxton, J.
Rowson, G.
Westwood, J.


Messer, F.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Milner, Major J.
Sanders, W. S.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Montague, F.
Sexton, T. M.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Shinwell, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Silkin, L.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

7.45 P.m.

Mr. Riley: I beg to move, in page 5, line 15, to leave out "six times."
I think I shall be in order in dealing with this Amendment and the following Amendment in my name together, since the second Amendment is more or less consequential. As the Clause now stands, the standard price of oats is fixed at 8s. a cwt., and the subsidy can operate only if the price of oats falls below 7s. 7d. a cwt. It is only in those circumstances that the farmer growing oats will be entitled to claim the subsidy. The Clause is somewhat intricate, but it may be explained simply by saying that the amount of subsidy is to be fixed at six times the difference between the market price at the time and the standard price of 8s. If the price of oats fell to 7s. a cwt., I take it that the farmer would be entitled to collect a subsidy of 6s. a cwt. There is a saving qualification to the effect that in no circumstances can the subsidy rise to more than £1 an acre.
I would point out to the Committee that the market price of oats is now about 9s. a cwt., so that for the subsidy to rise to about £1 an acre would mean that the price would fall to something less than 5s. a cwt. As has been said already in the Debate, there is no likelihood of the subsidy being paid, because the standard price is now exceeded by 1s. a cwt. Only if there is a substantial fall during the next two or three years will the subsidy be paid. Nevertheless, the fact remains that this Clause, when it becomes law, will establish that the grower of oats shall receive a subsidy up to a maximum of £1 an acre in the event of prices falling. Let me say that in proposing to leave out "six times" in line 15, and to substitute "three shillings and sixpence" for

"one pound" in line 16, I have selected figures which are quite arbitrary. As a matter of fact, any old figure would do for the purpose, for my object in moving the Amendment is to oppose any part of the subsidy being operated. I confess frankly that I am an unashamed opponent of all forms of subsidy, either to the agricultural industry or—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now making an argument which it would be more appropriate to make on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I thought that there was a definite reason for the figure in the Amendment, or I would not have selected it.

Mr. Riley: I will confine myself to dealing with the Amendment. The subsidy as provided for in this Clause will, in the absence of safeguards, inevitably transform itself in the long run into an enhanced value of agricultural land to the owner. I am moving this Amendment in order to do away with that iniquity. In saying that, let me emphasise that I am not indifferent to the practical suggestions put forward by the Minister in this Bill. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee are not indifferent to increased fertility of the soil.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must confine himself strictly to the question of the figure in the Amendment, and reserve his present argument until the Question is put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Riley: I will bow to your Ruling. I submit to the Committee that the proposed subsidy is unnecessary, on the ground that the market price of oats is 9s., that the standard price fixed in the


Clause is 8s., and that, therefore, the farmer is already receiving for his oats 1s. per cwt. more than the standard price recognised in the Clause. Moreover, there is a protective duty.

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot see how that affects the hon. Member's Amendment, which deals solely with the amount of the subsidy, and not its purpose.

Mr. Riley: May I submit to you that I am trying to demonstrate that this amount of subsidy is not necessary?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not what the hon. Member's Amendment does. It merely deals with the amount of the subsidy, and not with the question of whether or not the subsidy is necessary.

Mr. Riley: I am moving to leave out "six times" because I consider that six times the difference between the standard price and such price as may be below 7s. 7d. is too much. Not only is the grower of oats receiving at the present time a price which is higher than the standard price, but he is protected by a duty on oats imported into this country. On those grounds, I submit the Amendment is perfectly justified, and that there is no need for the subsidy which is provided for in this Clause.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Price: I think the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend would be much fairer in its operation than the scale provided in the Bill. I spent some time last night in mathematical calculations to try to find out exactly what would happen if this Clause became law in its present form. With the various scales of prices and the various yields per acre, it seems to me that there are rather serious anomalies. I have an open mind on the matter and I am prepared to be convinced that my mathematics are all wrong, but I will give three examples to the Committee. Let us assume that the price of oats is 7s. 6d. per cwt., which means that the subsidy is operating. Agricultural returns show that the yield of oats per acre varies from eight or nine cwts. to the acre in some parts of the West country to 20 cwts. per acre in the Isle of Ely. In a bad season, or as a result of bad farming, the yield is sometimes as low as five cwts. per acre. I have

worked it out that if the scale works as proposed, with the limit of £1 per acre, it will mean that the subsidy rate per cwt. will be 1s. per cwt. for a yield of 20 cwts. to the acre, 1s. per cwt. for a yield of 11cwts. per acre, and 1s. 2d. for a yield of five cwts. an acre. In other words, the subsidy will be higher by 2d. per cwt. on the lowest yield. That will mean that anyone who gets a yield of only five cwts. per acre will get the subsidy. Therefore, the bad farmer who allows the weeds to grow and gets a low yield will have a higher subsidy rate. I do not like that method. If we are to have a subsidy it ought to be on a clear basis. If the price falls to 7s., then it should be raised by subsidy to 8s. per cwt., but these complicated calculations give rise to all sorts of difficulties.
Again, I find that if the price is, say, 8s. 6d. per cwt. and the yield is 20 cwts. to the acre, there is no subsidy and the gross return in that case will be £8 10s. If the price is 8s. per cwt., again there is no subsidy and the gross return will be £8. If the price falls to 7s. 6d. per cwt. the subsidy comes into operation, again assuming the yield to be 20 cwts. to the acre, there will be a subsidy of £1 on the acre. The gross return then will come to £8 10s. or 10s. more than it was when the price was 8s. In other words the farmer will get more when the price is 7s. 6d. than he will get when it is 8s. There are further anomalies. If the yield is 11 cwts. to the acre and the price is 8s. 6d. per cwt., there will he a gross return of £4 13s. 6d., but if the price falls to 7s. 6d., the gross return, with the subsidy, will come to £5 2s. 6d., or 9s. per acre more.
I am sorry to weary the Committee with these calculations, but I think the matter is important. and I only hope that the Minister will be able to show that my calculations are wrong. But obviously, it would be better to have a simple rate of subsidy in place of this complicated system. If we decided to have a standard price and bring the price up to that level I think it would be a much better method. I support the Amendment.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) began by making a minor point which I had better dispose of at once. He asked why was it, although 8s. per cwt. was the guaranteed


price, it was not paid unless the actual price fell below 7s. 7d. The only reason is that if you allowed deficiency payments to be made on such small sums as 2d. or 3d. per cwt. the administrative expenses would be out of proportion to the total amount involved.

Mr. Riley: I think the hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood me. That was not what I had in mind.

Mr. Wedderburn: I thought the hon. Member had referred to the fact that the subsidy payment would not be made unless the actual price fell short of the guaranteed price by more than 5d. However, as I have said, the reason for it is that on very small amounts the administrative expenses would be disproportionate. I do not know whether I was right in thinking that both the hon. Member for Dewsbury and the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) were in some perplexity over their figures. It might be simpler if we dealt with this matter in terms of quarters instead of cwts., because there are fewer of them and the calculations are easier to make.

Mr. T. Williams: The Bill refers to cwts.

Mr. Wedderburn: I know, and I am not complaining about the hon. Members having used cwts. in their calculations, but I think the figures would be more easily comprehended if we dealt with quarters. The effect of this Clause is to guarantee a price of 24s. per quarter on two quarters to the acre. Suppose that a farmer grows five quarters to the acre. He will get the guaranteed price of 24s. per quarter on two quarters out of those five quarters. If he has to sell the remaining three quarters, he must take the market price for them but the assumption is that in the case of the normal mixed farm the farmer ought not to have to sell more than two quarters per acre and would use the remainder for feeding purposes. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean sought to show that the heavier the crop grown and the better the farming, the less would the benefit be from this provision. He referred to crops of 20 cwts. to the acre. I do not think it possible to grow such enormous crops except on land which would be suitable for growing wheat and therefore would not qualify for this subsidy. The normal

crop in Scotland is anything from 14 to 16 cwts., or round about five quarters per acre.
I have been working out a few figures of my own and I calculate that if the price of oats falls to 20s. a quarter, that is to say 4s. less than the price guaranteed in respect of the two quarters per acre, the man who grows five quarters to the acre will, if he sells the whole of his crop, receive 108s. on the acre, that is to say 60s. for the three quarters which he sells at 20s. per quarter and 48s. for the two quarters in respect of which he also receives the acreage payment. If he grows six quarters to the acre he will receive for the whole crop 128s., that is 20s. more, and if he grows seven quarters he will receive 1485. So, on the assumption that he sells the whole crop it will be in all cases very much to the farmer's advantage to grow the larger crop whatever the selling price of oats may be. He gets the acreage payment on the assumption that he is going to sell two quarters per acre off his farm. That is the amount which we desire to guarantee and, as I have said, in normal cases it will not be necessary to sell more than that proportion off the farm, keeping the rest for feeding purposes.

Mr. Price: Does that mean that he will not get the subsidy on the whole of his yield but only on a portion of it?

Mr. Wedderburn: Not on a proportion of his yield, but on a fixed amount of two quarters to the acre. Whether he grows four quarters, or six quarters, or seven quarters to the acre, he will still receive the guaranteed payment only in respect of two quarters to the acre. It is not based on a proportion of his output but on the fixed figure of two quarters per acre. My hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies are no doubt aware that in the case of the farmers in the North-East of Scotland—to remove whose grievances this proposal has largely been designed—many are under the necessity of selling more than two quarters per acre off their farms if they want to keep the farms in the proper arable rotation. The criticism has been made that the amount which is guaranteed under these proposals is not enough, but at the moment we are dealing with the opposite criticism, namely, that the guaranteed amount is too high.

Mr. Riley: Does that mean that where the subsidy based on the difference in price falls below the rate of £1 per acre, it will be paid only on two quarters per acre? Supposing it was only 10s., would it be 5s. per quarter on two quarters?

Mr. Wedderburn: The guaranteed price, as I was saying, is paid in respect of two quarters to the acre. If the price fell to 14s. the farmer in respect of two quarters to the acre would get it made up to 24s., but if the price fell to 10s. he would only get it made up to 20s. because the maximum is £1 an acre or 10s. per quarter in respect of two quarters to the acre. If you compare that with what the farmer has been receiving under the wheat deficiency payments, I do not think the comparison will bear out the hon. Member's contention that £1 per acre is, in all cases, an excessive payment, because at a time when the price of wheat was lowest the effect of the deficiency payments was that the wheat-growing farmer might be receiving £4 or £5 an acre.
The first reason which the hon. Member for Dewsbury put forward in support of his contention that the amount is too high was, that the grower of oats was now receiving a price higher than the standard price. I think it could, with equal logic, be argued that the amount is too low because for the last two years the grower has been receiving a price very much below the standard price. The fact that the price is now above the price which it is proposed to guarantee should be welcome both to the farmer and to the taxpayer. It will save the taxpayers this year and we hope, in other years, from having to make any payments at all. This is simply a policy of insurance. No payment is made when the price is above the standard level.
The other reason which the hon. Member gave was that there is now a very high duty on oats and that we imported only 7 per cent. of our requirements. The reason why the duty on oats is discounted as a factor governing price is that oats are used as a feeding stuff and compete not merely with other oats but with all kinds of feeding stuffs, particularly maize. If you wanted to draw a fair comparison, you would have to put a duty not only on oats coming in as feeding stuffs but on every kind of cereal feeding stuffs as well.

Mr. Stephen: If a man has, say, five quarters to the acre and uses four for feeding purposes on his own land, will he get paid on two?

Mr. Wedderburn: Yes, he will get paid on two. On the other hand, if, as most Scottish oat-growing farmers have to do, he has to sell three or four, he will still only get paid on two.

Mr. Stephen: If he sells none at all, he will still get two?

Mr. Wedderburn: if he does not grow wheat; but an arable farmer who cannot grow wheat has got to sell something. That is the whole point of this policy. A man who can grow wheat can use all the oats on the farm for feeding stuffs and can arrange to sell his wheat and to make that his cash white crop. That is what people in Fife can do, and they will not get the subsidy, but the unfortunate farmers farther North, in the North of Angus and Aberdeen, where they cannot grow wheat, if they want to keep their land in rotation have got to grow as much oats as we grow wheat, and it is for that reason that we are now trying, not to put them on an equality with the wheat farmers, but to remedy to some extent the disadvantage under which they have been for the last five years as compared with farmers who cart grow wheat.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland appears to think that in Scotland they can grow twice as much per acre of oats as in England. If the figure that he gives is the average, they do not grow more per acre in Scotland than we do in England. Where they could grow 5 quarters per acre, surely that land is good enough on which to grow wheat?

Mr. Wedderburn: No. I was referring to figures given by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price), who spoke of land growing 20 cwts. per acre, or about 6½ quarters. I think probably it would be good enough to grow wheat if it grew that, but I do not know anything about the general yield in England. My own knowledge applies only to Scotland, but I should call 5 quarters quite a usual yield and 6 quarters rather high.

Mr. Williams: Then it may be information to the hon. Member to learn that


the average output per acre in England is in excess of 5 quarters.

Mr. Wedderburn: Yes, but that is including wheat-growing land.

Mr. Williams: The yield for every county in England and Wales over the last 10 years shows an average output per acre of approximately 16 cwts., or 5⅓ quarters. That is taking all the counties together. It is quite true that over the last 10 years, from 1925 to 1934, the average output per acre of oats in the Isle of Ely was nearly 8 quarters.

Mr. Wedderburn: That bears out my point. The Isle of Ely is the richest agricultural land in the country.

Mr. Williams: There is only one area that produces 8 quarters per acre, year after year, with unfailing regularity, but there are 18 counties in England, excluding Wales, where they regularly average more than 16 cwts., or 5⅓ quarters, so that perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look at those figures and see how the oat productivity of this country compares with that of Scotland, because Scotland does not seem to me to be a world of its own so far as this matter is concerned. The figures which the hon. Gentleman gave to us rather tended to confirm the view which I held, but which I was afraid to express lest I might be wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) and my hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of:Dean (Mr. Price) tried to put examples before the Committee to show that certain results would accrue from this particular formula. Will the hon. Gentleman agree with me that on a farm where the output per acre equals 5⅓ quarters and the standard price of 8s. per cwt. is obtainable, that farmer will receive £6 8s. per acre for his oats, whereas if the price of oats falls to 7s. 6d. per cwt., falls, that is, 6d., actually this formula would give the same person with the same output 18 per acre? In other words, if the price for oats is 7s. 6d. per cwt., he gets £8 per acre for his oats, but if the price for oats is 8s. per cwt., he gets £6 8s. per acre for his oats.

Mr. Wedderburn: Will the hon. Member kindly repeat that?

Mr. Williams: Let me work it back. If the ruling price is the standard price of 8s. and the output is 16 cwts. per acre, then, quite clearly, he will get £6 8s. for his

acre of oats, but if the price falls to 7s. 6d., he will get 7s. 6d. per cwt. for 16 cwts., plus £1 [HON. MEMBER: "No."] Well, as the Bill stands at the moment, the price having fallen 6d. below 8s. per cwt., the subsidy would be six times 6d. per cwt. [Interruption.] I am still not satisfied that I am not right. It is six times the difference between the set price and 8s., or at the rate of £1 per acre, whichever is the less. The hon. Gentleman did not allow me to get to the £1 limit. I started the calculation with the price of oats having fallen to 7s. 6d. If the price has fallen from 8s. to 7s. 6d., the farmer is now entitled to six times the difference between 7s. 6d. and 8s. Six times 6d. being 3s., and the output for that acre being 16 cwts., it would be 16 times 3s. but for the limiting words later on "not more than £1 per acre."

Mr. Boothby: Would it not be 3s.?

Mr. Williams: I confess that I am still in doubt and that I want clarification, but my reading of this first part of Clause 6 gives me the impression that it is possible, with this subsidy, for a farmer to receive more if the price is 7s. 6d. per cwt. than he would get if it was 8s. per cwt. I hope that neither the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), nor the Minister of Agriculture, nor the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will refer to these figures in terms of quarters, but in terms of cwts., the unit referred to in the Bill itself. There is no doubt about the "six times" meaning six times the difference between the standard price and the ruling price, with a limit of £1 per acre, and according to my reading of these words it would be the case in 18 counties in England where the output exceeds 16 cwts. per acre, that the farmer would receive more for his oats if the price was 7s. 6d. than he would if the price was 8s.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: I am sorry if I misled the hon. Gentleman by quoting in quarters instead of cwts., which I did with the intention of making the thing more simple. Let us, then, go back to cwts. In the example that he gave, if you produce 16 cwts. to the acre, and if the price is 8s., you will receive 128s. for that crop. If the price falls to 7s. 6d. you will receive 120s. to begin with, that is, 8s. less. The price is 6d. below standard price, and you receive an acreage payment of 6d. multiplied by six,


which is exactly 3s. That is to say you then receive 3s. per acre, bringing the gross price up from 120s. to 123s. You will be 5s. worse off than if the price is 8s. The subsidy limit of £1 per acre cannot operate unless the price falls as low as about 4s. 7d. per cwt., that is, 14s. per quarter. If the price is higher than that, the subsidy will be less than £1 an acre. If the price falls to an even lower figure than 4s. 7d., the maximum of £1 will still be maintained so that the loss will be borne by the farmer.
With regard to the figures of acreage production which the hon. Gentleman gave, I think that he must have misunderstood me, because what he seemed to be saying bore out the point I intended to make. The counties where the production of oats per acre is highest are, I imagine, those like the Isle of Ely which have the richest land in the country, and which, in fact, grow a lot of wheat and will not, therefore, qualify for the oats and barley subsidy at all. Speaking from memory, I should say that in Scotland, on the type of land which will qualify for this subsidy, 16 cwts. an acre would be a fairly high production. It would, I think, be slightly less.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: There is a point I would like to put to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) I think that he is now satisfied with what the Under-Secretary said. It is not a question of the amount of oats that can be grown per acre either in England or Scotland. That has no bearing on this subsidy, because it is limited to a limited acreage of oats per farm. What does matter is whether the farmer concerned can grow another cereal crop or not. I would like to take the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) to a farm in the north-east of Scotland and ask him to show the farmer how he could make a profit on oats at 16s. per quarter when the wheat farmers of England were getting a subsidy of £5 per acre. Perhaps he will tell the farmers of East Aberdeenshire how to do it.

Mr. T. Williams: Did not the hon. Member tell us a short time ago that they did not try to make a profit out of oats?

Mr. Boothby: No, I did not.

Amendment negatived.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, to leave out from "acre" to the end of the Sub-section.
The words to which I take exception are:
and where the said total area was not an exact number of acres, the odd fraction of an acre shall be disregarded.
The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) said earlier in the evening that he would not stand for these proposals being whittled down in the least, but I hope that he will stand for this kind of whittling down. There is a legal tag, de minimis non curat lex, which is sometimes translated as a schoolboy's howler as, "The law does not care about small men." This provision is a case in point. I am moving the Amendment in order to protect the smallholder. The man with the larger acreage does not mind if the last acre does not yield a pound, or whatever the subsidy is, but the small man does. The man with one or two fields, say, with an acreage of 5·9 acres, will draw a subsidy on only 5 acres. While I realise that it would be impracticable that every fraction, however small, should be included, I would like Inv right hon. Friend to consider this matter between now and the Report stage and try to frame this proviso so that where the fraction of an acre was more than half, the half could be counted. Perhaps he could devise some arrangement such as that.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I do not agree with my hon. Friend's rendering of the Latin tag which he quoted. I hope that he will not press the Amendment, because to carry out his wishes would involve a considerable increase in the cost of administration. The Committee can well imagine what it would involve if this payment had to be calculated upon fractions of acres up and down the country. The correct fraction would have to be ascertained, the correct calculation made, the expense of administration would increase, and a greater burden would be placed on the taxpayer as a result. The maximum payment is £1 an acre, and that only in the case of a very low price of something like 4s. 8d. an acre. If the price is 6s. a cwt., the subsidy would be 12s. If it were payable on less than an acre, we would have to calculate and ascertain the fraction of acre involved, the fraction of payment


involved, and distribute it. I can sympathise with my hon. Friend's anxiety to get everything he can for those who are growing oats, but I hope that he will see the administrative difficulty involved and the inconvenience and cost that would result. I trust, therefore, that he will not press the Amendment.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I listened to the Minister's explanation with the greatest interest, but it was the most extraordinary argument I ever heard from the Treasury Bench. Evidently the Ministry of Agriculture are not able to calculate in decimals. I have sometimes met friends who did not go very far in the elementary school who have had a holy horror of decimal fractions, having only got to the length of vulgar fractions—

Mr. Ramsbotham: It is not a question of calculating in decimals, but of paying in decimals.

Mr. Stephen: I still cannot see that the statement made by the Minister of Pensions is reasonable. What will be the extra cost of sending out so many postal orders for, say, 5s. 7d. instead of 5s. 6d.? It is a preposterous explanation that he has given us for not accepting the Amendment. An individual with 5·9 acres is to be treated as having only 5 acres. That is a most ridiculous attitude to take up. The calculation can be made very easily. There will be no increase in the number of people to receive money. It is only a case of inserting a different figure, of a person being paid some sum with a halfpenny in it or a farthing in it instead of a round sum. Halfpennies and farthings may come in even if the Bill remains as it is. We could have understood it if the Ministry of Agriculture had said that fractions of a penny were to be excluded in making payments, but if fractions of an acre are to be excluded it may make a difference of 7s. 9d. in the payment to be made to a smallholder. To a person like that 7s. 9d. is a big sum of money. It may not be much to a Member of the Government or to a member of the Civil Service—

Mr. Boothby: Or to a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Stephen: —or to a Member of Parliament, after the present increase; but to a smallholder it is a lot of money. The Minister has not persuaded me that

any real administrative difficulty stands in the way. If the Ministry of Agriculture have not got anybody on their staff who can do a decimal calculation some of the secondary schools will give them the loan of some of their pupils, or it might be a good experience for some of the children in the qualifying classes of the elementary schools to go to the Department and work it out for those civil servants. I hope we shall have a much more reasonable explanation. I suggest to the Minister that what was really intended was to get rid of fractions of a penny in making payments, and possibly between now and the Report stage he will agree to alter the wording of the Bill so that while fractions of a penny will be disregarded in making payments to the beneficiaries under this subsidy fractions of an acre will be taken into account.
It is not a question of not being sure whether it will be 5·9 or 5·8 acres. The measurements will be taken very accurately. The Ministry of Agriculture will know exactly the area of the land on which the subsidy is to be paid. The Department will be sure before they make the payment to the "subsidee." If Farmer John Thompson says it is 6.1 acres the Department will make certain that it is 6.i acres, and not 5·9 acres, and if the exact acreage is known there is no reason why the "subsidee" should not be paid the full amount of the subsidy, even if a decimal fraction of an acre does come into the calculation. The decimal part of an acre is of great importance to many small people, and I hope the Minister will see the reasonableness of this Amendment.

Mr. Turton: In the hope that between now and the Report stage the Minister will reconsider the arguments of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and myself, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: I beg to move, in page 5, line 29, at the end, to insert:
(2) The appropriate Minister shall not be authorised to make any subsidy payment in relation to any farm unless the occupier proves that during the year for which the subsidy payment is to be reckoned every adult person employed on the farm was assured of an average wage of not less than forty shillings per week


This Amendment lays it down that no subsidy shall be paid unless a farmer can show that he has paid an average wage of not less than 40s. a week to his adult workers. Whatever the fate of this Amendment there are one or two things on which hon. Members opposite and ourselves are agreed. In the first place we are all agreed that agriculture does and must play a large part in our national economy, both in peace time and in war. I think, too, that we are all agreed that there is a serious decline in the number of persons employed in agriculture. In 1927 there were 774,000 workers on the land, but to-day the figure has dropped to somewhere in the region of 600,000. Another thing on which hon. Members will agree is that we have excellent land in this country, in England, in Scotland and in Wales, and that it yields some first-class produce, both crops and stock. Anybody who looks at the photographs in this morning's newspapers of some of the exhibits at the Royal Agricultural Show must agree that the land does yield first-class produce. But there is one thing the land of this country has never as yet given, and that is a decent wage to the men who work on the land. It is excellent land, it will produce anything, but it has failed as yet to produce a decent wage for the men who do the work.
That is as true to-day as it was in the last century. Historically, conditions for the agricultural worker were bad. The statistics of prices in the 19th Century show that, whatever the state of agricultural produce, the wages of the worker were low. If hon. Members would like to enrich their knowledge of agricultural conditions in the past I suggest that they might spend a night or two reading the "History of the Agricultural Labourer," by Green, which contains some very interesting information. Despite the fact that landlords got a good rent and farmers a good return on their capital, the conditions of the agricultural worker were always bad.
During the War, where everybody had seen how this country had neglected agriculture, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) made that historic speech on the Corn Production Act and giving a guaranteed production price to the farmers, he talked at the same time

of giving the farm worker a guaranteed wage of 25s. per week. The land is excellent, but it has failed to provide a reasonable wage to the worker. Hon. Members on the other side have a great deal of sympathy with the farm workers—I do not say that facetiously or sarcastically. I can almost hear their perorations during the election, when they told the farm worker that he was the salt of the earth and a skilled worker in the oldest of industries, which came before coal. Men can exist without coal, but it does not matter whether you sell food in Grosvenor House or in a shack for motor drivers, it all comes from the land. I can hear hon. Members telling the farm worker what a great man he is and how, when returned to this House, they will do their best to see that he gets a square deal.
They know, and the Minister knows, that although there are wages committees in about 34 districts, the worker has not yet got a square deal and a living wage. It is true that wages during the last 34 years have been on the increase. They have increased in some districts, and we have got to about the 35s. mark. That is all to the good, but we still have districts on the 30s. level. Is there one hon. Member who will say that £2 a week is good enough for the agricultural worker? It is not enough, and we put it down only as a minimum. What are the answers? I know what will be the answer, which I have always regarded as the stock, historical answer. It is like this: "We would if we could, but we cannot, because it is not in the industry." It is the same argument that has been put up by other industries. I have had it put to me a thousand times, and I have pulled their legs and said it would not work.
We have a stream of complaints about the poverty of the farmer, but very little evidence is produced. We have no reliable facts concerning the costs of production. I am suspicious of this constant tale of poverty. I wish we had reliable evidence showing exactly what the position in agriculture is. I have been with farmers on farms, and those farmers have been perfectly frank and told me what the costs of production were but that was not in this country. It was in Australia. One of the differences between Australian farming and ours is that the Australian farmer frankly admitted that he was making money. I have never yet met an English farmer


who admitted that he was making money. The Australian farmer could tell me exactly what it cost to produce a pound of butter, and so on. How is it that we cannot get that information here? The reluctance to produce reliable evidence makes many of us suspicious. Nobody will deny that the State has done a great deal for agriculture. Where the subsidy has gone is another matter. For example, we have exempted agricultural land from rates. Then we have given subsidies, quotas and tariffs; subsidies for wheat, meat, beef and milk, and marketing boards for hops, potatoes and other products. The State has done these things for agriculture without any cost of production having been produced, and without any evidence as to the exact state of agriculture.
These direct subsidies have been given to agriculture without any means test. I am not going to make a comparison with the unemployed man, who is harassed to death if he does not disclose the source of what he gets, but I would say only that if the principle is right that, when the poor of the community get anything from the Exchequer they have to be subjected to a means test, the same condition ought to be attached to those who get money from the Treasury for agriculture. None can deny that the subsidies have permitted the farmers to pay the landlords their rent. We are opposed to subsidies for private enterprise, and to subsidising constantly first one branch and then another branch of agriculture, without exact knowledge of how it stands and without any conditions. What are agricultural wages to-day? They are not big. Although we are opposed to subsidies, we say that, if subsidies have to be given, the conditions should be attached to them of the payment of a decent living wage.
I wish one or two hon. Members who spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill were in their places, as I wanted to make a reference to them. I remember the hon. Member for one of the Norfolk Divisions saying that everything in the garden was Lovely in Norfolk. The agricultural workers were fine, capable men, getting 33s. 6d. per week.

Mr. Maxwell: It was not I who made that assertion, but, on behalf of my hon. Friend who did, I would say that all he

said was that there were competent men fighting the battles of the agricultural workers upon the Agricultural Wages Board.

Mr. Smith: I thank the hon. Member for the interruption, because it gives me the chance to say what I wanted to say. It is quite right about the competent men in Norfolk; in fact, I was with them only last Sunday, and one of them said publicly, that, in his opinion, the farms in Norfolk could pay a better wage than they are now paying. He brought about 100 family budgets before the wages committee showing the position of the agricultural worker in the countryside. This country has never yet faced the position of the agricultural worker, whose conditions are inferior in nearly everything that you can point to. His wages are lower than those in industry; his unemployment insurance is less than that of the ordinary worker; his workman's compensation is lower than that of the industrial worker because his average wage is less; and one hardly dare mention in the House of Commons the question of his housing. It is quite true that some rural districts are doing well in this respect, but others are doing nothing, and in the case of some houses, while people talk a lot about the roses round the door, that is the only beautiful thing that there is about them. Some of them are a scandal to the countryside.
In these days we are paying considerable attention to nutrition, and, indeed, the Minister of Health appointed a committee, who presented an excellent report. Mr. Seebohm Rowntree, Sir John Orr and others have dealt with the question of nutrition, but the average wage in agriculture to-day is not sufficient to maintain the standard of life that is advocated by Sir John Orr, Mr. Rowntree, or any responsible committee of inquiry that has gone into the question of nutrition. Mr. Rowntree states that in a town 53s. a week is the minimum that is required for a family of five, and in the country 41s. Therefore, I say it is about time that the House of Commons expressed a definite opinion that, if subsidies are to be continued, a decent living wage should be paid. I would ask hon. Members who represent rural constituencies not to bleat so much about the depression in agriculture, not to con-


centrate solely on the welfare of the landlord and the farmer, but to remember that the farm worker is an important factor in agriculture, and to see to it that he gets a better deal than he is getting now.

8.57 P.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: If this Amendment did what the hon. Member wants, there might be something to be said for it, but, whereas his whole argument was in favour of giving a subsidy in respect of payments to agricultural workers, the Amendment itself is very different from that. It says that nobody who pays less than an average of 40s. a week in wages is to receive a subsidy in accordance with this Measure. That would simply mean that the people who would get the subsidy would be those who were able to pay these wages, and who did pay these wages. Apparently, from what the hon. Member said, he assumes that there are a great many people in agriculture who can pay these wages but do not do so. If this Amendment were brought into operation, the rich farmers might possibly pay these wages in order to get the subsidy; millionaires who run model farms would pay these wages and get the subsidy; and such landlords as have their own farms and are rich would get the subsidy. It is very extraordinary that hon. Members opposite should move an Amendment which would give landlords a subsidy and leave out the poor farmers, the people who cannot pay high wages, and people on smallholdings who do not pay any wages at all.

Mr. Holdsworth: Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that an employer, because he was not paying 40s., would not get the subsidy?

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: That is what the Amendment says. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nothing of the kind."] The Amendment would allow everyone to get the subsidy except smallholders and people who cannot afford to pay high wages. It is a most extraordinary proposal to be moved by hon. Gentlemen opposite. As regards the broader question of the payment of subsidies for wages at all, I should have thought that hon. Members opposite had had sufficient experience of the payment of a subsidy for wages in the coal industry to make them very care-

ful. We have not had such a subsidy in this country except just temporarily. but in other countries it has been tried, and it has always been found that the payment of a subsidy for wages means paying money in order to keep an uneconomic business concern going. It encourages a business to take on and keep in work more men than the business needs. If there must be subsidies, it is better to subsidise the business, because in that case, although it may possibly produce material at an uneconomic price, at any rate the business itself is economic, whereas a subsidy for wages makes each individual business an uneconomic concern.

Mr. A. Jenkins: Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that employers of labour take on more labour than is absolutely necessary for carrying on their business, merely because they get a subsidy?

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: What I said was that, where this had been done abroad, that has been the actual effect. In this country, except in the coal industry, we have not subsidised wages, and I hope we never shall. I think I have said enough to show that the effect of the Amendment would be to subsidise the landlord and the rich farmer, and, that as regards the general question, it is not the right way to conduct any business. I hope very much that hon. Members opposite will press the Amendment and go into the Lobby in support of subsidies for rich landlords and rich farmers.

9.4 P.m.

Mr. Holdsworth: I think the Minister must have listened with astonishment to the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage). Let me take first the question whether this is an economic industry at all. If I had to define an economic industry, I should define it as an industry that could stand on its own feet, and could pay all its charges without the help of the Government at all. I consider it absolute impertinence for a Member who claims subsidies on every available occasion and runs into the Lobby every day and several times a day, to claim a subsidy for an absolutely uneconomic industry as it stands at present. I am not saying


that in criticism of the industry but, surely, an industry which is subsidised directly and indirectly to the tune of £30,000,000 a year is the last to claim to be on an economic basis.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I am sure I never said that agriculture was economic.

Mr. Holdsworth: That makes it worse. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now acknowledging that it is an uneconomic industry. Then he turns round and says, "For goodness sake, do not introduce into this uneconomic industry a further uneconomic way of subsidising wages." You are arguing against a subsidy on wages—

The Chairman: I think it would be better if the hon. Member would remember that he is addressing the Chair.

Mr. Holdsworth: I beg pardon. The hon. and gallant Gentleman addressed the Committee and suggested that it would be uneconomic to subsidise wages, but he never suggests that it is uneconomic to subsidise the profits in this industry. I do not believe the nonsense that is talked in this House about every farmer losing money. I have read about too many farmers' wills in the newspapers. I have no objection to profits being made in industry, but I do not believe the tale that is always told about the farmer, that he is never making any profits. Surely, the farmer should be the last person to talk about a subsidy on wages if at the same time he is perfectly willing to accept a subsidy towards any profits that he might make.
I want to make an appeal to the Minister, and may I give an invitation to hon. Members opposite, who are always almost shouting down the Minister of Agriculture, because he has a very unhappy time, far more unhappy from that side than from this on these questions. Would agricultural Members address themselves to the question whether they think 40s. a week is too much for the agricultural labourer? I understand that in the major part of the North of England that wage is paid, and I cannot for the life of me understand any man who would say that 40s. is too much for an adult person in any industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "No one has said it."] Hon. Members are very careful indeed to vote on a mere technical quibble against an Amend-

ment which would really assert in terms that 40s. is to be a minimum wage. I think it was the Liberal party who first brought in the Minimum Wage Act.

Mr. Macquisten: That is why they died.

Mr. Holdsworth: It was a glorious death. Further, we set up trade boards in order to give a minimum wage to people engaged in different industries.

Mr. Boothby: What was the result every time? The minimum wage became a maximum wage.

Mr. T. Smith: Not in mining.

Mr. Holdsworth: I am in an industry which is governed by the Trade Boards Act. If any master gets an employé who is worth more than the minimum wage, it is a very unwise policy indeed to make that a maximum. You are going to get in return for your labour what you pay for it. You will get better work and better results if you give people a wage on which they can live. It is astounding in this year of grace 1937 that people can get up and say they cannot afford to pay it. I do not think the Minister will make the contention that the mover suggested. I think he will say "There is machinery to deal with this. It is a shame to spoil this machinery which is agreed upon by both sides." I should like to appeal to him to put something into the Bill which will state that a certain minimum wage should be paid. My opinion is that the farmers really are not paying any wages at all. If you calculate the number of labourers employed in the industry and the average wage payment, the total is very little more than the agriculturists are receiving in the form of subsidies, direct and indirect. If you come to the House week in and week out and ask for all types of protection, quotas, and subsidies, there can be no justification at all for denying to the agricultural labourer a proper share of what you are giving to the industry. I hope someone opposite will address himself to the question whether he thinks 40s. should be laid down by the House as the minimum wage for the agricultural labourer.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: This Amendment raises a very important principle. With its object I have very great sympathy, and I was very much moved by the speech


of the Mover. If it were accepted I do not think it would in Scotland do very much harm to the agricultural industry, because I think they could afford it. I do not know enough to speak for England, but I know that, if you take the perquisites in the shape of housing and certain food that we have in Scotland, the average wage of the farm servant there is very much higher than the average in England. It is on quite a different scale. It is frightfully easy for the hon. Member who spoke last to shout across to Members on this side, "Do you think 40s. a week is too much?" It has been said many times on many electoral platforms. I do not think anything is too much. Almost everything is too little in wages, pensions and everything else. If I were asked if I thought old age pensions were high enough, I should say, "Certainly not." Therefore, that is no argument. If you take all the farmers at present, when agriculture is struggling back, particularly the smaller men and some without any capital at all, can the industry as a whole afford a minimum standard wage of 40s.? I question it very much. I think my hon. and gallant Friend was perfectly right and that to some extent, if you pass this Amendment, you will be handing over the subsidy to the landlord and to the farmer who can afford to pay, and who will pay of course, and the man without capital and the very small man employing two, three or four farm servants will be unable to pay the wage.
One of the most important points made by the Mover was in regard to nutrition. I think that is very much more important when applied to England than to Scotland. I have had a certain amount of experience, having represented a Scottish county for 14 years, and I assert that there is no malnutrition to speak of amongst farm servants, in that part of the world at any rate. They have bred a magnificent population for generations past and, if there is malnutrition coming, it will be because they have abandoned to some extent the good, plain, wholesome, cheap food that they themselves produce. There were the barrel of herrings and the sack of oatmeal and the bowl of milk which they used to get on every farm, enough to keep everybody, and most of these were supplied free.

They have now turned to this horrible canned stuff which is the cause of nine-tenths of the malnutrition in this country at the moment.

Mr. Leonard: Is the hon. Gentleman keeping to that diet himself?

Mr. Boothby: I have averaged four herring a day for years. The result is for all to see. There is one point I would make in reply to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. It has been suggested that the Minister will try to ride off on the basis of the Agricultural Wages machine, but we are just about to start in Scotland an experiment to which I attach very great importance. It is the new Agricultural Wages Bill under which the wages of each district are to be settled by a committee with an independent chairman representing the local farm servants and farmers in relation to prices and everything else. I really entertain great hopes of that Bill, and of the cooperation which may result from it because—and here again it is not boasting; it is the truth—the relationship between the farmers and farm workers in Scotland for generations, for the past 200 years, has been quite different from, and, if I may say so, without offence to hon. Members, infinitely better, than the relationship in England—a far better and more cordial relationship. Nothing should be done by this House which might jeopardise that relationship in any way.
I have a fear—and it is a genuine one—that if you standardise wages and start laying down under statutory law what the wages in different districts should be, you will be prejudicing the chances of that Bill working well. I say to my hon. Friends that I have every confidence that in Scotland—I am not speaking about England—under the machinery we are setting up in this House, the new Agricultural Wages Bill, as it applies to Scotland, we shall be able to settle our wage problems satisfactorily, and in years to come the farm servant in Scotland at any rate will be paid the maximum wages that the industry can afford.

Mr. Leslie: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the value of the barrel of herring, the sack of oatmeal and the bowl of milk the Scottish farmworker gets?

Mr. Boothby: It varies in each particular county, as the hon. Member knows, and I cannot give him the exact value, which varies with the prices.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths: Since my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) moved his Amendment I have had in mind the Biblical quotation,
And they all with one accord began to make excuses.
Immediately he sat down an hon. Member for one of the Lincolnshire divisions began to squeal, "You must not pay this 40s., and if you do so, you will ruin us all," and so on. I want to remind the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) of what the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) said. He stated that the Liberals passed the first minimum wages Bill in this House, and the hon. Member for East Aberdeen said that they made it the maximum. Trade unionism in the mining industry has been stiff enough and has had sufficient fight in it to prevent that minimum being a maximum, and it has not become the maximum. There is any amount of sympathy on the other side. They say, "We sympathise with you, but we are not prepared to vote with you." I have in my hand a book called "Human Needs of Labour" by Seebohm Rowntree, who has worked out scales. He has not had five months or only five hours on it, but has been doing it for weeks and months. He gives us the food and other scales based on 41s. a week for five persons—a man, wife and three children—in the country, and 53s. in the towns. The diet that he gives in respect of a wage of 41s. in the country, as far as I can personally see, will not maintain these five people. He gives a weekly diet, and I fall out at once with it because there is no—

Mr. Pritt: Yorkshire pudding!

Mr. Griffiths: —and no butter in it either. The diet is arranged for breakfast, dinner, tea and supper. I will take breakfast. On Sunday morning they have bacon, bread and margarine and fried bread, and then they are finished with bacon until the next Sunday morning comes round. On Monday they have porridge and skimmed milk, bread and margarine and fried bread. Porridge again on Tuesday—

Mr. Boothby: Hear, hear!

Mr. Griffiths: —and bread and margarine. They have not got any Aberdeen

herrings here at all. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen says that he has four daily; they do not get one between five of them in a week. This, mind you, is the diet which Seebohm Rowntree suggests is the minimum to keep these people in condition. I have heard the hon. Member for East Aberdeen talk about malnutrition and about the fear of it. He had tears in his eyes almost as big as snowballs when he said that we should look after the nutrition of these people for the sake of Defence. We must keep the people fit, and yet Seebohm Rowntree says that it costs 41s. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen says, "I sympathise with you, but if you have it we in Scotland will suffer." I hope that before the discussion on this Clause is finished at least somebody from Scotland who knows something else about Scotland will get up and make some statement on this matter. I am not going right through the week's dietary as I have not the time, but from one end of the week to the other Seebohm Rowntree does not state that there is any butter whatever; it is margarine all the way through the week. Hon. Members opposite are not satisfied with margarine. They are satisfied that somebody else should eat it; they will see that they do not eat it.
The dietary for the five persons for the week provides for 2½ lbs. of breast of mutton at 1s. 5¼d. That is the week's supply of meat. A little more than 3d. per person per week, less than a halfpenny a day as far as butcher's meat is concerned. That is the diet arranged on 41s. I see from the "Land Worker" that the minimum rates of wages of some agricultural workers are down to 33s. a week. In Essex they have had an increase in wages of 9d. a week. That is three-halfpence per day increase for a family, from 32s. 6d. to 33s. 3d. Someone said that the farmers had not got anything. They are always poor. I served on a public assistance committee in Yorkshire for six years and I never saw one farmer come to that public assistance committee. I know that they have nothing when they are alive, but when they die they leave a lot to someone else. I have a list of them in the "Land Worker." Eighteen of them have pegged out and they have left £500,000 between them.

Mr. Croom-Johnson: Farmers?

Mr. Pritt: He does not think that it is enough.

Mr. Griffiths: This is a proof that they make profits.

Mr. Croom-Johnson: Farmers?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, farmers. I hope you do not think I am dreaming. I do not think I had better read out the names. One farmer left £129,859 out of his losses. Coming to the other side of the picture, they say, "We cannot grant a minimum of 40s." The nearer the producers of the commodities of life are to the source of things the worse they are paid. The agricultural worker is worse paid than the man who sells his produce in London. He is worse paid than the middleman. Take my industry, the mining industry, where we are having explosions almost every day and where men are being killed in threes, fours and fives. The men who produce the coal hardly get a living wage. They are starving. But the people here in London are making hundreds of thousands of pounds profit. The fishermen who produce the fish are starving, along with their wives and children. The people who produce should have the best standard in life and we say that the farming industry can grant a minimum wags of 40s. I have any amount of stuff in this book from which I have quoted to prove that what the worker requires is food, a living wage and at the weekend a little pleasure to bring some joy into his life, as well as slaving all the week.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I would not have intervened but for the speech of the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth). The hon. Member supports the Amendment. I oppose it, but for reasons rather different from those given by some of my hon. Friends. The hon. Member for South Bradford supported this because it introduced a minimum wage. I am prepared to consider at any time the introduction of a minimum wage Bill for agriculture.

Mr. Jenkins: Are you prepared to support it?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, I am prepared to support it. I am prepared to consider it as a separate Bill, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will not feel that this is the right place.

Mr. Jagger: It never is the right place.

Mr. Stewart: I hope that hon. Gentlemen will allow me to proceed, I am trying to face honestly the facts of the situation. It is all very well to talk hot air, as most of us do sometimes, but we have to be brutally frank sometimes and face the facts. The fact is that this is not the way to introduce it. I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite should have moved this Amendment. Had it come from other quarters it might have been explainable, but hon. Gentlemen opposite only a few nights ago were praising themselves for the fact that it was they who introduced the Agricultural Wages Board system and the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) reminded us of that in an effective speech. Why was that done? It was done because in the opinion of the Government then—and it is my opinion—the right way to deal with wages is by the method of negotiation between the two sides. If the Labour party press this Amendment it will seem that they are saying that their old method is wrong.

Mr. Garro Jones: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to save himself from a charge of hypocrisy he will tell us whether if a Bill is brought in to provide for a minimum wage of 40s. he will vote for it or not.

Mr. Stewart: As a matter of fact, if the hon. Member will make it £3 I shall be more interested in it. I hope that hon. Members will not laugh. I have said many times in this House that £3 a week is not too large a minimum wage for agriculture.

Mr. Garro Jones: Will you vote for it?

Mr. Stewart: If a Bill is introduced in a proper way I am prepared to consider it, but I am submitting to the Labour party, as it was they who introduced the Agricultural Wages Board system and claimed credit for having done it, they have really no right now to go behind it and urge this new method upon us.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will you recognise also that the miners have a minimum wage and in addition wages boards in every district?

Mr. Stewart: As I have said, I am perfectly prepared to consider a minimum wage Bill, but my point is that this is not the way to do it.

Mr. Buchanan: Show us why.

Mr. Stewart: I do not want to detain the Committee, but a minimum wage Bill for agriculture is a matter which should stand on its own legs. It should not be tacked on to this Measure which deals only with a small section of the industry. It is not only that I sympathise with the hon. Member who moved this Amendment. I agree with him, but this is not the way to go about the matter. In Scotland, as the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) has pointed out, we have at last succeeded—I have been trying for years to get it—in obtaining a system of agricultural wages boards. I support that because I am perfectly satisfied that that is the only right way of raising wages. I have spoken to-night because I do not want to be unfairly charged at some later date with having voted against this Amendment. I am not only voting against it, but I think it my duty to speak against it and to explain my reasons. My reasons are that by the methods which the party opposite themselves introduced, and which have now been introduced to Scotland, I am confident that a higher wage can be obtained. The speech of the hon. Member was little more than a repetition of those rather discreditable perorations which he condemned at the beginning of his speech.

Mr. Holdsworth: The hon. Member has tried to make out a case that you should not have a minimum wage, because there is a negotiating body to carry out that task. That was part of his argument.

Mr. Stewart: That was not my argument.

Mr. Holdsworth: The hon Member was critising the Labour party because, having set up the machinery of the Agricultural Wages Board, they now make this proposal, and he said that by the Amendment they were going back on the Agricultural Wages Board. May I put this point to the hon. Member?

The Deputy-Chairman: May I point out that the hon. Member should address the Chair?

Mr. Holdsworth: The hon. Member said that this is not the proper way to do it. Does he not recollect that at the same time that the Minimum Wage Act was

passed there was a negotiating body of the Miners' Federation and the mine-owners to carry on wage negotiations? Can he still contend that by the setting up of the minimum wage we should prevent other negotiations as to wages?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member has not quite got my point. I have no objection to considering a minimum wage, if the proposal is made in addition to the Agricultural Wages Board. My objection is not to adding a minimum wage system on to the Agricultural Wages Board system, but rather that it should be proposed from the benches opposite in this way. If the Labour party desire to be fair and straightforward and to pursue matters in a Parliamentary fashion they ought to introduce a minimum wage Bill. If they do so it can be considered, but I submit that the party which introduced the method of the Agricultural Wages Board are not the persons to condemn us for abandoning that method now when its benefits are beginning effectively to show themselves.

9.39 P.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I can generally follow the arguments of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), but to-night I can neither follow his logic nor his argument. He says that this is not the place to do what is proposed in the Amendment. Then he says that he is in favour of a minimum wage. Next he says that if we do not establish a minimum wage, the farm worker would get a higher wage under the Bill. Then he finished up by saying that he was prepared to consider a minimum wage. It is the famous old argument whenever one attempts to do a certain thing, this is not the place to do it. Why is this not the place? The hon. Member did not show us why it is not the place. The facts are briefly these: Certain people under this Bill are being given privileges. The farming community are being given privileges. The Coalition Government of 1918–22, which the hon. Member enthusiastically supported, established this principle. It was provided in some of their Bills that certain people should be granted concessions, and a definite guarantee of a minimum wage was given.
In this Bill the farming community are being granted certain concessions by the State, and all that the Labour party are asking is that in that guarantee, not


only should the farmer be guaranteed, but his farm servants should be guaranteed also. Is that not the way to do it? What better place could there be for doing it? If we tried to introduce it in a minimum wage Bill we should be told that the farmers have no guaranteed prices, that they have no subsidies and no way of recouping themselves. We should be told: "Give us the finance, give us the guarantees, and then we will do it." We have given the farmers the guarantee in this Bill and now the hon. Member says this is the wrong place to do what we ask. There never was a more desirable place. We are asking for a 40s. minimum wage. Surely, that is not an extravagant wage. The only argument I have heard is that some farmers cannot pay. If this Bill has any purpose it is to make the farmers able to pay.

Sir William Wayland: Only in part.

Mr. Buchanan: It puts them pretty well on the road, and it will not be long before they get enough to pay 40s., if they cannot do it now. The landlords and the farming community are constantly securing concessions, but never have they guaranteed to their ordinary workers a decent minimum wage. Why cannot that be guaranteed?

Mr. De Chair: This applies only to the subsidy for oats and barley, and not for all barley.

Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Member says that it only applies to a limited portion and that it does not include all barley. What would happen if the Amendment were carried? The Government would have to re-adapt the machinery to make it include the lot. Everybody knows that that would happen. In the past the Government have had to make concessions on far bigger things than this. They had to re-adapt the Budget, not because of a Parliamentary defeat but because of Parliamentary criticism. If to-night the Government accepted this Amendment, the simple thing for them would be to re-adapt their Bill to it. Here farmers are being given guarantees, and this system is being linked up with the marketing scheme and the whole range of legislation that they have recently obtained. The only criticism of the Amendment is that it is placing the

wage too low. Forty shillings is not enough. Then the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) tries to ride off with the old cry about making it £3. When you introduce a proposal that the allowance for a child should be 4s., you are told to make it 5s. If you want to increase the wages of agricultural labourers why not make a start at £2? If the farmers of this country are to do well, then the purchasers of their goods must do well also. The purchasers of farm products cannot purchase butter, eggs and other things unless they have the income to do it. Farmers if they want to have prosperous farms should set an example and pay their workmen higher wages. I am sure it would pay them well in the long run.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am sure hon. Members will agree that we have had an interesting discussion and that most of the points have been adequately covered. There is a difference of opinion in the Committee, and I do not expect unanimity on this matter. At the same time, we have drawn into the forefront the salient points of controversy which surround this topic. The issue here is not whether there should be a minimum wage for the agricultural worker or what the amount of that wage should be. I would ask the Committee seriously to consider the real proposal in the Amendment. It is to select for this minimum wage one section of the agricultural industry, and that section is to consist of those people who grow oats and barley but do not grow wheat. The Amendment, therefore, leaves out the relatively prosperous section of agriculture and the proposal is that a 40s. wage shall be applied to those who are on the worst land in the country from the point of view of crops, and who are, consequently, least able to pay it. There is another point which has created in my mind great difficulty about this Amendment. Reference has been made to the smallholder, and it has been suggested that that is not a typical case. May I put what is a common case, particularly in the oats and barley growing land, and that is the family farm. The Amendment would mean that a man who grows oats and barley but who pays no wages to his family would not get the benefit of the subsidy.

Mr. Riley: They would be in the nature of a partnership on a family farm.

Mr. Morrison: The occupier of such a farm would have to
prove that during the year for which the subsidy payment is to be reckoned every adult person employed on the farm was assured of an average wage of not less than forty shillings per week.
How can you say that a son who is working for his father on a farm and receives 5s. a week pocket money is not employed on the farm? The Amendment would hit an extremely deserving section of the community. Again, the subsidy will not be paid if the price of oats remains at something like the price now ruling; it is only when the price collapses that the subsidy becomes payable. That means that in times like the present, when prices are relatively satisfactory, the farmer would receive no subsidy at all because no subsidy would be payable, and therefore would not have to pay a minimum wage of 40s. per week, but as soon as the market collapses and the bottom drops out of the oats and barley market then along comes this demand. Surely that is the wrong way of approaching this very important question of the remuneration of agricultural workers. It is not a question of whether 40s. is enough. Everyone will agree that agricultural wages should be as high as possible and, in fact, they are a good deal higher than when the present Government came into office. We must also look at the Amendment against the background of the legislation which already exists. There is the Agricultural Wages Act, and a similar Bill dealing with Scotland is at present before Parliament. That is the method which has been adopted since 1924 as the appropriate way of settling these matters. There is no provision in this Bill to review that Act.
What is the effect of superimposing the Amendment which is now proposed on the machinery of the Agricultural Wages Act without repealing or altering that Act? It would produce a state of affairs in which the Agricultural Wages Act would be impossible to operate. How is the occupier to prove that a person employed on his farm is assured of a wage of £2 a week? I suggest to the Committee that the proper way of dealing with the matter is to let the Agricultural Wages Act operate. If it is desired to alter its terms that is a separate matter, but I feel sure that this piecemeal method of approaching what is a difficult problem will only bring confusion. As a matter of

fact, the Agricultural Wages Act has brought to the agricultural worker some share in this added prosperity. The General Secretary of the National Union of Agricultural Workers has said:
The increase in agricultural wages in the above three years has given very important financial benefits to agricultural workers.
In summarising the position he points out that in three years the wages in agriculture have increased by £2,300,000 per annum. That carries us only to the end of 1936, and although everyone will agree that there is much to be done—and I hope to have the co-operation of Members in all parts of the Committee in endeavouring to improve the conditions of agricultural workers—it is not true to say that they have have not benefited from the assistance which has been given to the industry. The minimum wage in 1933 was 30s. per week, and taken on the average it has now increased by 2S. 6d. per week for all adult workers. There are as a matter of fact £500,000 regular male agricultural workers and this means that farm workers have gained about £3,000,000 in wages. One hon. Member commented that this is not a large fraction of the amount of assistance which has been given to agriculture, but the calculations of that assistance are not the same on the opposite side of the Committee as on this side.
Whatever may be the amount of assistance, there is this to be said in general on the question, that if we wish to improve the wages conditions of the agricultural workers, the best way is to cooperate, as far as we can, in practical schemes which will give to the countryside a greater degree of prosperity. It cannot be said that the whole of the assistance which has been given has gone into the farmers' pockets, because a great deal has had to replace losses made at the time when the farmers supplied the industrial community with food below the costs of production. There is a great deal of slack to be made up in that direction before one can estimate how much of this assistance goes to the farmers. Let us co-operate together to promote the prosperity of the industry as a whole, and I am certain that although this may appear to be a long view of the matter, it will in the end prove the shortest cut to improved conditions for the agricultural workers.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I do not wish to prolong the Debate unduly, but I feel obliged briefly to reply to the right hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members opposite are very fond of referring to the improvement that has taken place in agricultural labourers' wages since 1933. They always fix their own starting point, and they never refer to the slump between 1931 and 1933. The figures of the National Farmers' Union show that from 1925 to 1936 there was an all-round increase throughout England and Wales of 1s. per week, or £1,666,000. Leaving out the downward tendency between 1931 and 1933, and the upward tendency between 1933 and 1936, during which period the agricultural workers were merely winning back what they had originally lost, over a ten-years' period they gained 1s. per week on their wages. Since 1936, I am willing to admit that there have been slight increases here and there, but they have been very small. If we compare the progress in wages between 1925 and 1936 with the increased output per person employed in agriculture, the agricultural workers' wages have been lagging behind, because investigators tell us that the output per person has increased in volume since 1931 by approximately 25 per cent. Really, there is very little to boast about as far as the wages of agricultural workers are concerned.
The right hon. Gentleman argued, perhaps correctly, that this is not the appropriate moment at which to deal with agricultural wages, but hon. Members on this side are entitled to ask what the Government are prepared to do to help the agricultural labourers to help themselves. It is recognised that in large areas of this country the agricultural labourers have done very little to help themselves, for they have been very badly organised. Their representation on the county wages committees has not been as efficient as it might have been owing to the absence of trade union representatives. In all those cases, there has been nobody to overrule the county wages committees' decisions which have left agricultural wages where they were. That is the reply to the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart). When county wages committees have been less than fair to agricultural workers, there has been no national wages board to step in and refer those decisions back to the

counties for further revision. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member is more optimistic than I am. My recollection is that since 1924, when the Agricultural Wages Act was passed, the Minister has not intervened in a single case. The National Wages Board as we know it might as well be altogether out of existence, for it merely records decisions taken in the various counties.
Therefore, we are entitled to ask the Government, which is caring for the farmers, for agriculture. or for our food, however one may wish to put it, when they are providing guarantees or subsidies or assistance, direct or indirect, in a multiplicity of forms, what they are prepared to do for agricultural labourers Is not this an opportunity to do something? It might cause difficulties of administration to say that only those farmers who grow oats or barley and get guarantees shall pay 40s. a week to their workers and that the remainder shall be left out; but my hon. Friends are justified, when guarantees or subsidies are being provided, in claiming that the agricultural labourer shall at least share somehow in what the State pays to agriculture. I suggest that this Amendment is fully justified on the facts of the case and that the agricultural labourer is deserving of more than sympathy from the Committee.
If the right hon. Gentleman would tell us to-day that he feels that there is a weak link in the Agricultural Wages Act, 1924, and that there ought to be a national wages board that could overrule the county decisions and in some cases refer back those decisions for further consideration, then I am not sure we should press Amendments of this description on every agricultural Measure that is brought forward, but in the circumstances we are entitled to say that if the Government are making further provision for one commodity or for another, for agriculture, for the farmers, for the landlords or for anybody else, jointly or separately, then something ought to be done for the agricultural labourers. For those reasons, I am certain that this Amendment is justified, and if for no other purpose than to protest against the treatment meted out to the agricultural labourers generally, I hope my hon. Friends will press this Amendment to a Division.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that this Amendment will be pressed to a Division in order to show up the hypocrisy of our opponents on this matter. I was interested, and rather ashamed, to note that most of the criticisms of the 40s. minimum came from Scottish Members. I was also interested to note the Minister's excuses for not accepting this Amendment, which proposes that the farm servants shall receive a 40s. minimum. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be dangerous to deal with only one section of agricultural labourers. My reply is that we are dealing with only one section because the subsidy deals with that particular section. It is because hon. Members on these benches believe that when the nation's money is given to the employers in any particular industry, not only should that money be given for the purpose of increasing profits, but it should give a decent minimum wage to the labourers employed in the industry.
It is a simple statement of fact that agricultural labourers, both in Scotland and England, are not receiving a decent minimum wage. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), as per usual, said he sympathised with the effort to give farm labourers decent conditions. We have often noticed young Members opposite buttoning their coats and declaring how they would like to do this and that and the other thing were it not for the fact that there is no money in the country. But they vote as one united body to give to particular industries millions of pounds in subsidy. The Minister referred to the family farm—to the small farms run by the farmer and his family, all sharing in the profits. I would be interested to hear of the number of such families who are in dire distress or whose members are living on less than a 40s. minimum. But is it to be said that because there are smallholdings, operated by farmers and their families, who can be considered as partners in the business, the wage labourers who have no such interest in the farms are to he denied a minimum wage of 40s.?
The point has been made that agricultural wages have increased. The average agricultural wage, according to the Minister's own statement, has only increased

during many years by 2s. 6d. and the increase has generally been in those areas where the agricultural workers are strongly organised. The Secretary of State for Scotland, on 10th June last, said:
The average minimum rate in England during the period 1926–31 was 31s. 8d. per week; by 1933 it fell to 30s. 6½d. and then rose to 31s. 10d. in 1935."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1937; col. 2041, Vol. 324.]
Then the right hon. Gentleman said the fall was greater in Scotland and in some instances very much greater. It is, I think, a decided impertinence for a man of such substance and means as the hon. Member for East Aberdeen to come here and say that he has four herring daily and that that is good enough for the agricultural workers. I am sorry that the hon. Members is not now in his place because I should like to ask him what else, besides the four herring, he has that the agricultural worker with 31s. to 33s. a week does not receive. That type of argument does not deserve much attention from those who are seriously concerned with the condition of the agricultural worker. When the hon. Member for East Aberdeen makes these bragging statements with regard to agricultural workers in Scotland, I would like to point out to him that the average wage in Aberdeen is 29s. 3d. per week. That was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnson) and appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and has never been denied. There are, of course, perquisites. Those perquisites in Scotland range from 3s. 3d. to 12S. a week. We desire that there should be a definite standard for agricultural workers; that these differences ranging from 3s. 3d. to 12s. in different areas should be abolished and a minimum wage established higher than the highest wage paid to agricultural workers in Scotland to-day.
The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) said that this was not the time. Apparently this is the time to give the farmers a material subsidy which will be of great benefit to them. In our desire that the farming community should benefit and agricultural production increase, we have already agreed to marketing schemes and subsidies. We have met the farmers in every instance but when it comes to asking them to guarantee, out of what we have given them, a 40s. minimum to their employés, we are told that this is not the time and


this is not the place. If the same argument were applied to industry generally it would follow that we ought not to deal with factory legislation at all but leave it to the trade unions. But the hon. Member knows that the efforts of his friends and many like them against the trade union movement has made it necessary in many instances that the workers' conditions should be considered and dealt with in Parliament.
Reference was also made by the hon. Member for East Fife to the new Wages Bill. When a piece of legislation is about to be put into operation we are always told that we ought not to interfere with it. The hon. Member if he is alive to the conditions of farm servants in Scotland, knows that the new Bill has come into being because of the continuous decrease in farm labourers wages in Scotland during the last few years. That is an indisputable fact. A 40s. minimum would not in any way interefere with a single Clause of that Bill and even if it did, why should we not agree to say, from this House of Commons, to any Commission or body which has been given power to deal with agricultural wages, that in all future negotiations a minimum shall be laid down which exceeds any wage rate received by agricultural workers in the past. Hon. Members opposite have pleaded their great concern for the farm servants. I want to state emphatically that if they vote against this Amendment, which asks for a 40s. minimum for the farm servants of this country, they are voting against the interests of the farm servants themselves, and they are not representing the interests of those farm servants; and that applies to Scottish as well as to English Members of this Committee.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: If we go back to the very earliest industry in this country, we find that agriculture was the one and only industry. The old story goes that Cain murdered Abel because Abel refused to cease paying a decent minimum wage to his agricultural labourers; and, by the way, there are some Cains in existence who would murder any of their friends who paid a decent wage to their agricultural labourers. Later on, in the fourteenth century, we had in this country what was called the "Black Death," which killed

off many of the agricultural labourers, and for a time those who were left were in clover, because they could demand a decent standard of existence, but this was the place which prevented their getting beyond a certain maximum wage, because by the Statute of Labourers their wages could not exceed a certain amount; and there are Members of the Government to-day who would like a Statute of Labourers fixing a maximum wage for labourers no higher than 31s. or 32s. a week. Later still, in the nineteenth century, we had the Tolpuddle Martyrs, who stood nobly out and fought for an increase in wages, and we are very glad to be the inheritors of that cause for which they stood so boldly, and were transported for their pains. In this country to-day, in the twentieth century, we have a moaning constantly going on that there are fewer and fewer agricultural workers. Some 120,000 fewer agricultural workers are employed to-day than were employed in 1921. There is no incentive nowadays to become the farmer's boy, because they cannot all marry the rich farmer's daughter, so they are leaving this industry on account of the low wages that are paid.
I hold in my hand the Ministry of Agriculture "Journal," which gives us some of the wages for the present month of July, 1937. In Hampshire, I notice, the newest rate of wages is the magnificent sum of 32s. a week for a 51-hour week, which works out at 7½d. an hour, and female workers of 18 years of age and over in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight are paid the abnormal sum of 5d. per hour for all time worked. If we come to Dorset, the home of the Tolpuddle Martyrs, not much improvement has been made there when we find that the rates there are only 33s. a week for a 51-hour week, or a fraction over 7¾d. an hour. These agricultural workers do not always get these rates of wages either, because I find, on turning the page in the same "Journal" of the Ministry of Agriculture, that during the month of June there were legal proceedings taken against employers because they had failed to pay even those miserably low wages. In one case arrears of wages were paid to a labourer of £36 13s. 7d., in another case £50 under-wages had to be paid, in another £14, in another £6, and in another £10. And what about the cases of those agricultural workers who did not get these rates but who dared not say so?

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Member's argument had better be raised on the Vote for the Ministry of Agriculture rather than on this Amendment, because this Amendment does not deal with the working of the Agricultural Wages Board.

Mr. Sexton: I am quoting agricultural wages paid at present in support of this Amendment, which asks for a minimum of 40s. per week. If the figures are not palatable to some people, I cannot help that. They are the truth, because they are in the "Journal" published by the Ministry of Agriculture. At any rate, these agricultural workers are an indispensable part, not only of agriculture, but of this nation, and if war should come and these agricultural labourers should get even fewer, there would be a dreadful state of affairs owing to the shortage of food supplies. The old argument has been used here as it has always been used when we ask for the increase of wages—the industry cannot afford it. The same argument was used 100 years ago about miners' wages. I want the Committee to understand that agricultural workers not only "plough and sow and reap and mow," as they did in the days of the old song, but they have to be more expert now. Agriculture is becoming mechanised, and they are now skilled workers. They are not now the bottom dogs in industry. They have to be skilled in hedging and ditching and know a little about veterinary surgery, and all sorts of things. They are not just the menial people some people think they are. Yet with all the many accomplishments we are asking only 40s. a week for them, and the National Government are refusing it.
We have been told again and again that this is not the time and place for pressing this increase. When is the time and where is the place? On the Livestock Bill, when we tried to get compensation for the workers who are thrown out of work, we were told that it was not the time or place. There is always a differentiation between those who work and those who reap. All the arguments that I have heard from the other side are as thin as the argument in an old agricultural rhyme from the North country:
Oats and beans and barley-o,
You and I and everyone O,
You and I and everyone O,
Oats and beans and barley-o!

Let hon. Members study that and see whether they can find any argument in it. That is the argument of the National Government.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: As I represent a constituency which has a considerable agricultural area, it is necessary for me to say a word to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart). Neither of them dare go to his constituency and put up such arguments as they have addressed to the Committee to-night. If this Amendment is passed there is not a farm labourer in Fife or Aberdeen who would not be happier. I do not know how the hon. Member for East Fife can get up and say that £2 is not enough, and that the agricultural worker is worth £3. If he believes that, will he not vote for £2. If the hon. Member for East Fife is poor in his arguments, what are we to say
about the Minister of Agriculture? We used to be told that the Socialists were out to steal the widow's mite. Now the Minister of Agriculture comes forward, not with the widow, but with the family. The simplest thing for any farmer with ordinary intelligence is to pay his son 40s. a week. The Member for East Aberdeen said that our proposal would injure them in Scotland. The Member for East Fife said the Wages Boards would give higher wages in Scotland than we should get under a minimum wage Bill, but it is not true. The Wages Boards are going to operate. We accept the Wages Board as a slight advance, as the most we can get under the circumstances, but if we can get a further advance we will have it. A minimum wage Bill and Wages Boards—good. But the Wages Boards in Scotland are not going to provide a minimum for the Scottish agricultural labourer. Are they? If the hon. Member for East Fife says, "Yes," then he does not understand the Scottish Agricultural Wages Bill.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Surely the whole purpose of the Agricultural Wages Boards is to obtain in each district a minimum wage for farm servants.

Mr. Gallacher: I asked, is there going to be a minimum wage for Scotland? I say there is not, because there can be as much as 10S. a week difference between the minimum wage in one part of Scot-


land and another. There are such terrible conditions that at least 70 per cent. of the farm workers are living in homes which are not fit for human habitation. Is there any man who claims to be interested in the land who can tolerate such conditions? I could take hon. Members to places in East Fife and West Fife, indeed, all over Scotland, which are a disgrace. Bonnie Scotland—but what ghastly sights are to be seen in Bonnie Scotland.

Viscountess Astor: And in Russia?

Mr. Gallacher: Is it permissible for me to make a dissertation on Russia?

The Deputy-Chairman: No.

Mr. Gallacher: The Wages Boards will operate in various districts, and it will be possible for a minimum wage in the County of Aberdeen to be 10s. below the minimum wage fixed in Stirlingshire. That being so we have not a minimum wage for Scotland. Those who claim to be interested in the land and in agriculture must not think of the farmer only. There would be very little farming without the farm labourers. The House must face up to the fact that it is necessary to look after the interests of the agricultural workers. The Minister of Agriculture told us that. He told us that if this Amendment were passed the position would be that where the industry was in a favourable condition and the subsidy was not needed the farmers would not pay the wages.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I said that when the industry was comparatively prosperous there would be no obligation to pay the 40s., but that when there was depression and the subsidy was claimed the obligation would immediately arise.

Mr. Gallacher: I understand what he said—when there is no application for the subsidy the farmer would have no obligation to pay the wages, and therefore would not pay the wages. That was the idea he wanted us to have. [Interruption.] Surely it was the idea. If the farmers were prepared to pay wages when the industry was prosperous there would be no argument left about when the industry was not prosperous, because they would then continue to pay the wages and get the subsidy. The position is that the farmers will not pay the wages unless we are prepared to lay it down that they must pay the wages. If we lay it down that they pay while they get a subsidy, they will always be after a subsidy. The very fact that the Minister of Agriculture, from his wide experience of the farming industry, can come here and use such an argument as that the farmers will not pay unless under an obligation to do so, makes me say, Let us put the farmers under obligation to pay. We will deal with any anomalies that arise after we have established that position. I ask all hon. Members who are interested in agriculture to give some consideration to the men and women who are living such harsh lives, who work so hard and get so little of the pleasures of life, and to support the Amendment and guarantee those workers 40s. a week. Not long ago I read about a dinner that took place and which cost 38s. a head. If you can pay 38s. for a dinner, surely you can give the agricultural worker 40s. a week. I would warn some Scottish Members that if they vote against this Amendment they are going to hear about it.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 116; Noes, 211.

Division No. 273.]
AYES.
(10.31 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Cluse, W. S.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Adams, D. (Consett)
Cocks, F. S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cove, W. G.
Grenfell, D. R.


Adamson, W. M.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Daggar, G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Ammon, C. G.
Dalton, H.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Banfield, J. W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Barnes, A. J.
Dobbie, W.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Barr, J.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Bellenger, F. J.
Ede, J. C.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Holdsworth, H.


Broad, F. A.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Jagger, J.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Foot, D. M.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Buchanan, G.
Frankel, D.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Burke, W. A.
Gallacher, W.
John, W.


Cape, T.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)




Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Muff, G.
Simpson, F. B.


Kelly, W. T.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Naylor, T. E.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Kirby, B. V.
Oliver, G. H.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Lathan, G.
Paling, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Lawson, J. J.
Parker, J.
Stephen, C.


Leach, W.
Parkinson, J. A.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Lee, F.
Price, M. P.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Leonard, W.
Pritt, D. N.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Leslie, J. R.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Tinker, J. J.


Logan, D. G.
Ridley, G.
Viant, S. P.


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Riley, B.
Walkden, A. G.


McEntee, V. La T.
Ritson, J.
Walker, J.


MacLaren, A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Watkins, F. C.


Maclean, N.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Westwood, J.


MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Rowson, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Marshall, F.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Mathers, G.
Sanders, W. S.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Messer, F.
Seely, Sir H. M.



Milner, Major J.
Sexton, T. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Montague, F.
Shinwell, E.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Silkin, L.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Lees-Jones, J.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Duggan, H. J.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Levy, T.


Albery, Sir Irving
Dunglass, Lord
Liddell, W. S.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Eastwood, J. F.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Apsley, Lord
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Lyons, A. M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Ellis, Sir G.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Fleming, E. L.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Macquisten, F. A.


Balniel, Lord
Furness, S. N.
Maitland, A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Gledhill, G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Baker, Sir R.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Goldie, N. B.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gower, Sir R. V.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Brass, Sir W.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Morgan, R. H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Munro, P.


Butcher, H. W.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Nall, Sir J.


Butler, R. A.
Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Carver, Major W. H.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Cary, R. A.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Hannah, I. C.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Patrick, C. M.


Christie, J. A.
Hartington, Marquess of
Petherick, M.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Pilkington, R.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Procter, Major H. A.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hepburn, P. C. T. Buchan
Radford, E. A.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hepworth, J.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Cranborne, Viscount
Higgs, W. F.
Ramsbotham, H.


Critchley, A.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Crooke, J. S.
Holmes, J. S.
Rankin, Sir R.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Remer, J. R.


Cross, R. H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Crossley, A. C.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cruddas, Col. B.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Culverwell, C. T.
Joel, D. J. B.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


De Chair, S. S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Denville, Alfred
Keeling, E. H.
Salmon, Sir I.


Deland, G. F.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Salt, E. W.


Donner, P. W.
Kimball, L.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sandys, E. D.


Drewe, C.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Savery, Sir Servington


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Selley, H. R.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Leckie, J. A.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)







Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Titchfield, Marquess of
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Touche, G. C.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Tree, A. R. L. F.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Spens, W. P.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Turton, R. H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wakefield, W. W.
Wragg, H.


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Stuart, Lord C. Crichton (N'thw'h)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)



Tasker, Sir R. I.
Warrender, Sir V.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Waterhouse, Captain C.
Major Sir George Davies and Captain Hope.


Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Watt, G. S. H.



Thomas, J. P. L.
Wayland, Sir W. A

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.41 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Before the Clause becomes part of the Measure, I should like to state the reasons why I think my hon. Friends ought not to support it. We have heard it said by the Minister and the Under-Secretary for Scotland, and, by hon. Members who represent Scotland, that it is grossly unfair to provide either a guarantee or a subsidy for wheat for British farmers without at the same time making similar provision for Scottish farmers. We always opposed the Wheat Act, 1932, and we shall continue to oppose the extension of the Wheat Act in Clause 13 of this Measure, and we are utterly opposed to Clause 6 for this very simple and understandable reason. It has been said that the Scottish farmer must have a guaranteed price, or an insurance, for his oats if he is to make agriculture pay. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) admitted that oats grown by Scottish farmers are very largely used as food for cattle and, as a result of that, they sell the finest quality of beef. Therefore, what he asks for in effect is that the Treasury shall provide a direct subsidy for a commodity grown as a feeding stuff, and another direct subsidy for the beef after having been fed on subsidised raw material. That seems to us to be wholly unnecessary, and an absolute departure from, and an innovation in, the capitalist system of society. You are to provide definite guarantees for the production of cattle food. Once the cattle are available for the market, you must provide a subsidy for the beef sold at a price less than it cost the producers.
For once in a way, there is no foreign competition in regard to oats. Last year we imported only 9,000 cwts. from foreign countries. There is a 3s. duty on imported foreign oats, so that there is no problem there. The only oats that

we imported came from Canada and they are a very small proportion of what we produced. In England approximately 80 per cent. of the oats grown are consumed by the farmers. In Scotland it may be 40 per cent., but in that case they are very largely sold from one farmer to another, and it does not make any material difference to the economics of the farm whether there is a guaranteed price or not. The Under-Secretary earlier in the evening made the statement which we have heard so frequently that Scottish farmers must have a white crop with their rotation of seven years. We entirely agree. But, that being the case, the white crop becomes one of seven and, if the six crops are soundly economic, it does not matter very much what happens to the seventh since the seventh is a side issue rather than being a fundamental crop. From that point of view, this new orientation of capitalist economics is a system for which they themselves are responsible and which they may live to regret.
The hon. Member for East Aberdeen asked, "Why cannot we get a decent price for our oats in Scotland?" He replied that it was because subsidised wheat in England had been sent over the Border at such a small price for feeding cattle and the rest, that they could not get a reasonable price for their oats. That is not an argument for subsidy on oats but for taking off the subsidy on wheat. For that reason I suggest that this extension of guarantees, of subsidies or assurance, or whatever you may call it, for one crop in seven, a very minor part of agricultural produce, is a step in the wrong direction. We have been producing more oats than can be sold at what the farmer calls an economic price, and to guarantee prices or subsidies or to ensure a certain price is bound to attract a greater production in the future. That happened in the case of milk and of beef, and it has happened in respect of almost


every commodity for which a subsidy has been provided. It is bound to happen here, and it may very well be that in a year or two, as a result of the farmers producing a quantity of oats which they cannot sell surplus to farm requirements, they will find that the price is going down because of the guaranteed price provided for in Clause 6. For these reasons, and because I think it is a step entirely in the wrong direction, I am against Clause 6 standing part of the Bill.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: I rather wish now that the Committee had accepted the opportunity of having a wider discussion on the Amendment which we discussed a few hours ago, instead of leaving it to the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill. I am sure that we are all most anxious not to have any repetition, but the points are really very much the same. The hon. Gentleman has returned to the point about the amount of feeding which the Scottish farmers do with their oats. Perhaps I can make the position clear as between the wheat-growing farmer and the oat-growing farmer by giving an example. Supposing you have two arable farms, one in the South of Scotland growing wheat, and the other in Aberdeenshire growing oats. Both farmers have cattle and they both want to grow feeding stuffs. Supposing the one growing wheat has to have 30 acres of his land under white crops and is under the necessity of selling 15 acres of the crop, he will arrange to grow 15 acres of wheat which he will not use for his feeding stuffs but sell off, and he will arrange to grow 15 acres of oats which it is not necessary for him to sell off. He, of course, will not apply for the oats subsidy.
The other farmer is in precisely the same position with regard to the necessity of having a certain amount of feeding stuffs. The only difference is that he cannot grow wheat, but has to grow the whole 30 acres in oats. He produces cattle to the same extent as the other farmer. The difference is that he has got his cash white crop in oats instead of having it in wheat. Therefore, whichever way you look at it. the present position is unfair as between the farmer who can grow wheat and the farmer who can only grow oats, in that in one case you

have a guaranteed price given and in the other case you have not.
The hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that this was bound to attract a greater production. It is one of the objects of these proposals that we should aim at a greater production of oats and barley. It is provided that if the increase is more than 10 per cent. of the standard acreage, the amount of subsidy per acre will be proportionately reduced. That, of course, is the same as under the Wheat Quota Act. The permitted quantity under the Wheat Act is now being increased under this Bill. At the same time, we are allowing for an increase of 10 per cent. of feeding oats and barley. If the increase should be greater than that, if people start growing more than they need, the general subsidy payments will be reduced all round.

Mr. T. Williams: Is there a chance that the Government will do with this what they are doing with wheat—extend the area?

Mr. Wedderburn: What we want to arrive at is a good balance of all types of agricultural production. I know that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it would be far better if we had more grassland and far more meat and not so much cereals. I have already explained that that is not our view. We think that ideally it would be better to grow a greater proportion of our cereals, not only because it would be far safer in the event of war to have a greater proportion of our cereals produced here, but also because the plough is necessary to maintain agricultural life. We do not think that we have reached the level of cereal production which ought ideally to be maintained in this country. I think that that covers all the points which the hon. Gentleman raised and I do not think that he will desire me now to go further into the general question of policy, which is not so much a matter for this Clause as for the whole of the cereal policy which we have been pursuing for several years, and whose principles, whether hon. Members agree with them or not, are well known to the Committee.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 108.

Division No. 274.]
AYES.
[10.53 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Nall, Sir J.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Furness, S. N.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P G.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Albery, Sir Irving
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Gledhill, G.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Apsley, Lord
Gluckstein, L. H.
Patrick, C. M.


Asks, Sir R. W.
Goldie, N. B.
Peat, C. U.


Assheton, R.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Petherick, M.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Pilkington, R.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Procter, Major H. A.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Radford, E. A.


Balniel, Lord
Grimston, R. V.
Ramsbotham, H.


Burnish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ramsden, Sir E.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Rankin, Sir R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Remer, J. R.


Blaker, Sir R.
Hannah, I. C.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bossom, A. C.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Boulton, W. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Brass, Sir W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Russell, Sir Alexander


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hepworth, J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Butcher, H. W.
Higgs, W. F.
Salmon, Sir I.


Butler, R. A.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Salt, E. W.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Holmes, J. S.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Sandys, E. D.


Cary, R. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Savery, Sir Servington


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Selley, H. R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Channon, H.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Christie, J. A.
Joel, D. J. B.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Keeling, E. H.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Colfax, Major W. P.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Colman, N. C. D.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Kimball, L.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Critchley, A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Crooke, J. S.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Leckie, J. A.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Cross, R. H.
Lees-Jones, J.
Touche, G. C.


Crossley, A. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Levy, T.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Liddall, W. S.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Culverwell, C. T.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Turton, R. H.


De Chair, S. S.
Lyons, A. M.
Wakefield, W. W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Doland, G. F.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Donner, P. W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Drewe, C.
McKie, J. H.
Watt, G. S. H.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Macquisten, F. A.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Maitland, A.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Duggan, H. J.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Dunglass, Lord
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Eastwood, J. F.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Wragg, H.


Ellis, Sir G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Emery, J. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Emmett, C. E. G. C.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)



Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Morgan, R. H.
Major Sir George Davies and


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Mr. Munro.


Fleming, E. L.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Ammon, C. G.
Barr, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. F.
Bellenger, F. J.


Adamson, W. M.
Banfield, J. W.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Barnes, A. J.
Broad, F. A.







Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pritt, D. N.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Burke, W. A.
John, W.
Ridley, G.


Cape, T.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Riley, B.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ritson, J.


Cocks, F. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kirby, B. V.
Rowson, G.


Daggar, G.
Lathan, G.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Dalton, H.
Lawson, J. J.
Sexton, T. M.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leach, W.
Shinwell, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, F.
Simpson, F. B.


Debbie, W.
Leonard, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Ede, J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Sorensen, R. W.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Stephen, C.


Frankel, D.
MacLaren, A.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Gallacher, W.
Maclean, N.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Garro Jones, G. M.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tinker, J. J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Marshall, F.
Viant, S. P.


Grenfell, D. R.
Messer, F.
Walkden, A. G.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Montague, F.
Walker, J.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Watkins, F. C.


Groves, T. E.
Muff, G.
Westwood, J.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Oliver, G. H.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Paling, W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Parker, J.



Holdsworth, H.
Parkinson, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jagger, J.
Price, M. P.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.

CLAUSE 7.—(Subsidy payments and wheat deficiency payments to be alternative.)

11.2 p m.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 6, line 39, to leave out "at the beginning of," and to insert "on."
This is a simple but very necessary Amendment. To those who like legal technicalities the law takes no regard for a portion of a day, and this introduces a new principle into the drafting of Acts of Parliament. Those who do not like legal technicalities but like common sense will find if they read the Clause that it does not make sense. What the Clause says, as it is drawn is, that if you have a farm which is a wheat and oats farm someone must be in a position to say whether they are going to get the wheat subsidy or the oats subsidy, and it deals with a case where a different man is in charge of a farm at the beginning of a day and another man at the end of a day. In other words, if the owner of the farm dies at the beginning of the day the man who has to make the election is not the man who is alive at the end of the day, but the man who is dead at the beginning of the day. That is the only meaning that can be made out of the Clause. It says that a man may leave his farm on the 4th June and that a new man can come in. The man who is to get

the subsidy is not the man who has farmed the land, but the man who has taken the farm on the 4th June. I do not want to weary the Committee with the ludicrous position which can be got out of the words of the Clause. They cannot make sense in any other way.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am stirred, almost hurt, by the hon. Member saying that the words of the Clause do not make sense. I will try to show what we have in mind and why we prefer our phrase to his. The words "at the beginning" provide for a possible change of occupation on the critical day, that is 4th June. It is possible that the farm may change hands at noon and we do not want to have two persons relating to the same tenancy claiming assistance. We have put in the words to be absolutely on the safe side. If the farm changes hands at noon the claim must be made by the person who was the tenant in the morning. This is not a very big point, but in order to be on the safe side, we prefer the wording in the Bill to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member.

Amendment negatived.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move in page 6, line 41, after "period," to insert "ending not earlier than the first day of December."
I am moving this Amendment chiefly to get some information from the Minister as to the sort of period he envisages. It is most important that the farmer should have some idea of what the yield of his crop is going to be before he makes his election. Those hon. Members who, on Monday morning, spend a few valuable hours reading the "Times" crop forecasts will have noticed how even the agricultural editor of the "Times" can be very sadly out when the crops are sown compared with what he is just before harvest. Therefore, it is very important that the period should be as late as possible.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I will explain briefly to the Committee certain reasons which make it impossible for us to accept this Amendment. If hon. Members will look at Sub-section (3) of this Clause, they will see that the Minister has to furnish the Wheat Commission with a list specifying the farms in respect of which persons have elected in accordance with this Clause. If they did not make their election until after 1st December, it would be very difficult for the Minister to do that. That would make advance payments under the Wheat Act impossible until late in December at the very earliest. It would also make it quite impracticable for the Minister to know whether those who have elected have elected for the oats or the barley subsidy, because in December the land would be under the plough, and there would not be the necessary indication as to whether the applicant intends to grow oats or barley. I think the hon. Member will agree that those are practical reasons why we cannot accept the Amendment. As for the hon. Member's question to me, I cannot give him the precise period, but I can assure him that it will be as limited a period as is reasonably possible.

Mr. Turton: On that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Provisions as to applications for subsidy payments, extent of farms, etc.)

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move in page 8, line 28, to leave out Sub-section (3).
This is a point of some substance and it specially concerns certain areas of the country. As the Committee knows, a man who is growing wheat on one farm and oats or barley or another, if the farms are farmed as a single unit, is to be prevented by this Sub-section from getting both subsidies. In other words, if I may give the Committee an illustration, if there is an upland farm growing oats under one occupier and a lowland farm growing wheat under another, both the upland man and the lowland man will get the respective subsidies. If the lowland man, growing wheat, buys the upland farm where oats are grown and runs both farms as one, then, under this Subsection, he will not be allowed more than one subsidy. This is a matter of importance to Yorkshire and to other parts of the country where there is sheep-raising and where the upland farm is used for breeding the sheep and the lowland farm for finishing them and both are farmed as one unit. I agree that it is necessary to have a definition of a farm in connection with the purpose of the Bill, but I submit that where two farms are worked as a unit, it is inequitable that the farmer should be penalised as he will be under this Sub-section. Even if the Minister cannot meet my point now, I hope he will look into the question and try to make some concession in this respect before the Report stage.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Morrison: I have looked into this matter and listened with great care to what my hon. Friend has said. As he appreciates, it is essential in administering a subsidy of this character to have some definition of the unit of cultivation to which the subsidy applies. Especially is that necessary when, as in the Bill, the principle is that if a man is entitled to draw the oats subsidy in respect of a farm, he is not entitled to draw the wheat subsidy in respect of the same farm. That being the principle on which we are proceeding, though there may be difference of opinion on whether it is a


good principle or not, this definition of the unit of cultivation follows as a matter of course. I feel that another difficulty will arise if we do not include these words in the Bill. There may be a risk—I do not say a great risk—of some manipulation whereby parts of the same farm would be held under different tenancies, so as to enable one man to claim the wheat subsidy and another tenant perhaps in the same farm to claim the oats subsidy. Thus you would have the same unit drawing both, contrary to the intention of the Measure. There is another objection of a more general character, but worthy of attention. Without this definition and the policy enshrined in it, the Measure might work inequitably to assist the larger farmers. They would be able to split up their holdings into convenient parcels for the purposes of the subsidy, whereas that course would not be open to the smaller farmers who might be in more need of the assistance provided under the Bill. For those reasons I hope my hon. Friend will not persevere with his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(Laying of rules and regulations before Parliament.)

11.14 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I beg to move, in page 9, line 40, at the end, to add:
If either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation or rule is laid before it resolves that the regulation or rule be annulled, it shall forthwith be void but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new regulation or rule.
This is one of those Amendments which it is becoming increasingly necessary for back bench Members to move in order to curb the growing tendency of Ministers and Departments to usurp the powers of the House of Commons, and make rules and regulations without the House having any power to amend them. As this Bill progresses the Minister seems to become gradually less willing to leave the power of discussion in the hands of this House.

In Clause 1 it is necessary for an affirmative Resolution to be tabled, in Clause 3 only a negative Resolution is possible, and in this Clause and in Clause 21 the House has no opportunity whatever of saying anything with regard to the rules and regulations that the Minister makes, as under this Clause, although the rules must be laid before the House, there is no provision made for a Prayer. In resisting a previous Amendment the Minister said that one way in which the House might lose control was by cluttering up its work with unnecessary detail. This Amendment, if carried, would not have that effect, because it would not have any force unless some hon. Member wished to talk about the subject and therefore put up a Prayer. I hope the Minister will be able to accept this Amendment.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I propose to accept the Amendment. When I talked about Parliament cluttering itself up with business, I was protesting against a proposal to impose the affirmative Resolution procedure upon the House. I think the negative Resolution procedure is an admirable device to ensure that Parliament can intervene if it is necessary. In this case I think that, though the rules and regulations are not likely ever to give rise to Parliamentary scrutiny, it is valuable to have the power in reserve, and I accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I should like to know what are the reasons why the Rules Publication Act is to be cut out of this Part of the Bill. I do not suggest that there is no good reason, but no reason has been given to us hitherto.

11.19 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The omission of this Clause might obliterate the objectionable omission of the Rules Publication Act, but would still have unpleasant consequences from the point of view of hon. Members who wished to see the rules made. The hon. Member was asking why


it is proposed not to render these rules statutory rules to which Section 1 of the Rules Publication Act applies. The position is that that Act was referred to by the Donoughmore Committee, and there is a large body of opinion in all sections of the House that that committee was right in criticising this particular Act as in some respects out of date. The particular Section which it is proposed to prevent from applying to these rules is Section 1. Its real application is to rules and regulations which affect public policy. Sub-section (1) provides for publication in the "London Gazette" 40 days before the Orders are made. The purpose of the Section is in Sub-section (2), which says that during the 40 days any public body may obtain copies of such draft rules on a payment not exceeding 3d. per folio, and any representations or suggestions made in writing by a public body are to be taken into consideration. The rules and regulations to which Clause 12 apply are not those which affect public bodies in any respect. They are rules which prescribe the conditions under which the standard acreage is to be calculated, and other matters which affect the subsidy payments. They are matters which are of interest to the individual farmer, a man who never reads the "London Gazette" in any circumstances. Consequently the application of the Act, which is designed to ensure the publication in this official journal for the purpose of enlightening public bodies and to enable local authorities to take steps for their protection, do not apply to the rules and regulations affecting individual persons as in this case. Ample notice will be given in the usual way of what is proposed to be done, and it will be given in a manner more apt to convey the information to individuals than is contained in this Section of the Rules Publication Act.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Benn: What the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked is the fact that by accepting the Amendment he has made it unnecessary for the Clause to remain. This Section in the Rules Publication Act does not apply to rules which have to be laid before Parliament. Therefore it is unnecessary to have the Amendment.

I merely mention this in order that we may not put in a double redundancy.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Foot: The Minister referred to the Donoughmore Committee, and anyone would suppose from his remarks that that committee had condemned the Rules Publication Act, at any rate in its present form. What the Committee did was to criticise the working of the Act on the ground that it was not strong enough and there were too many exceptions in it. The committee proposed to cut out a good many of the exceptions in the Act and they recommended that except in a very special case no future statute should provide for the exclusion of regulations made thereunder from the Amendment of the new Rules Publication Act which they proposed. They condemned this practice of Government departments cutting out rules from the operation of the Rules Publication Act.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am not sure that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) in his point of view about Section 1, which says:
The statutory rules to which this Section applies are those made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament which directs the statutory rules to be laid before Parliament, but do not include any statutory rules if the same or the draft thereof are required to be laid before Parliament before the rules come into operation.
I am not certain whether those words exclude these rules. I think the rules we are proposing to put into operation do come into operation without lapse of time. I am obliged for the intervention of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot). I did not wish to give a wrong impression in my references to the Donoughmore Committee. It was the view of the Committee that in many respects the Act was not apt to meet modern conditions, and that an overhaul might be of service, but the real point of substance of the right hon. Gentleman was that as these rules are, in fact, to be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament there is no necessity for this cumbersome procedure, particularly as it was rightly designed for the enlightenment of bodies far different from this.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I move this Motion in order to give the Patronage Secretary the opportunity to inform the Committee how far he intends to proceed. I think we have done fairly well.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): I must frankly confess that the Government had hoped to make rather more substantial progress than has been possible to-day. As the Prime Minister said this afternoon, we had hoped to complete the Committee stage this evening. However, it is quite evident now that that will not be possible without sitting a considerable time longer, and if an agreement can be come to between the Government and all quarters of the House that we shall finish the Committee stage on Monday, and that the other Orders will be completed, then the Government will be prepared to accept the Motion to report Progress and continue and finish the Committee stage on Monday evening. If that can be agreed to all round, then the Motion will be accepted.

Mr. T. Williams: I am sure that I can speak for my colleagues when I say that as far as we can assist the right hon. Gentleman to achieve the results aimed at we shall most certainly do so, consistently with our normal duty to examine the various items of business before the House. I think the day has been devoted to constructive suggestions, and I see no reason why on Monday the same sort of thing should not happen.

11.29 p.m.

Sir F. Acland: I think the suggestion of the Patronage Secretary is the best that can be made in the circumstances. I think it is going to make a very hot day for us on Monday, but I know how crowded the programme is and he has met the situation as well as could be done in the circumstances, and I hope that we shall do our best when Monday comes.

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power of Board of Trade to guarantee export transactions.)

11.32 p.m.

Mr. R. S.Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out "all."
This is one of two Amendments which are of a draft character. It is thought that the words proposed to be left out might be somewhat restrictive in their operation in the event of the exporters not being the same persons as the shippers. It avoids any restrictive effect to leave out the words in this and the next Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 28, leave out from "exported," to "during," in line 29.—[Mr. R. S. Hudson.]

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — NIGERIA (REMISSION OF PAY MENTS) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [28th June]:
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Stretford and District Gas Board, which was presented on the 24th day of May and published, be approved."—[Captain Wallace.]

Question again proposed.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. J. Henderson: I am convinced that what has eventuated since last week nas justified the action that was then taken in opposing this Order, and I am positive, in view of the facts that have emerged, that the House would be wise to refer back the Order for further consideration. I know it will be said that the householders in question could have protested at the Board of Trade inquiry. I very much regret that they did not recognise the significance of that inquiry, and were remiss in not giving attention to it, but I believe it to be our duty to repair that remissness. In this locality there are 1,140 householders, nearly 1,000 of whom signed a petition protesting against this Order. In 1934, 147 of them left the district; in 1935, 188 left; in 1936, 236 left, including 64 owner-occupiers; and, from the information I have been able to obtain it seems likely that many more will leave in 1937. Last week a lot was said here about safeguarding the rights of this Mother of Parliaments, but we find that in Stretford, although this Order has not yet received the sanction of the House, the extensions to the buildings involved in the Order are in a very advanced state. From this it would appear that the procedure here is regarded as simply a matter of form, and that we are considered to be here simply to give the interest by means, so to speak, of a rubber stamp. I do not know whether the Board of Trade have any locus standi in the matter, but it seems to me to be very wrong to go ahead with these buildings and rather compromise the position and try to jockey this House into passing the Order.
Some days ago the Minister of Health and other Members spoke very eloquently about the preservation of amenities in this country—the preservation of rural England. That is the gravamen of our complaint in opposing this Order. We want to protect the lives and homes of the people who live near to this gas plant. The noises day in and day out are nerve-racking. The stench is disagreeable, the fumes are injurious to health and, as a result of the dust and grit, the people cannot allow their windows and doors to be open. It will be said that the new plant will prevent this, to which our reply, in Yankee slang, is "Says you." They

paint such a handsome picture that perhaps the landlords will be induced to increase house rent in the neighbourhood. I have seen some of the housewives' washing in the locality. Within six hours it is as bad as ever. I have a letter from one who lives in the locality. He says:
I own and live in property directly overlooking the field in which they are already building the proposed extensions. Indeed, what I am told is to be a new power house and the tall steel framework of what is to be the new retort house already tower in front of my windows. When I came here in 1924 we faced a pleasant field, apart from a single lined siding connecting the then small gas works with the railway. Now every available foot is being filled. The whole plant immediately adjoins the densely populated residential area of Gorse Hill, Stretford. The fumes from the present retorts and gas holders are very bad indeed and an overhead travelling grab rattles and whirrs with its load of glowing cinders all night. Thus the other end of Thomas Street. Now we are to have this duplicated at this end.
The representative of the Board of Trade said last week that he had received many letters from business firms stating that unless this Order was granted, it would have dire consequences and reactions on them. I have a shrewd idea that many of these letters, and many of the reports given to newspaper representatives, are inspired, and that the writers do not live in the area, but get their gas at the other end of the pipe, miles away.
The background of our objection is that there are adequate resources available to fulfil this demand. I believe it is Government policy, and business policy, that electricity should be confined in large units. If that is good for electricity, why not for gas? The gasworks of the Manchester Corporation, the most modern in the country, are nearer Stretford than Manchester, away from all habitations, and they have displayed acumen and foresight in putting them there. The maximum load of these gasworks is 36,000,000 cubic feet. Their peak load at the moment is 27,000,000 feet, leaving 9,000,000 feet deficiency. The Stretford addition will have a maximum of 6,000,000 feet, which means that Parting-ton gasworks, with this additional load, will still be well below the maximum load. It would mean no great financial outlay. There are miles of gas mains right away from the Partington Gas Works, and the "T" passes, in order to connect up any locality, actually exist


in Stretford. I suggest that with the minimum of disturbance it would be possible to connect Stretford with the Partington gas main within a very short time. Therefore, from the standpoint of disturbance and speed, there is a saving to be gained by linking up with the Manchester-Partington Gas Works. The 36 high pressure main from Partington passes within 200 yards of the extensions involved in this Order.
It is adduced—and I believe it is true, and I am not going to attempt to controvert it—that the price of Manchester gas is higher than that of Stretford, but I suggest that if the Manchester Gas Works, with no additional capital outlay can have a demand for over 6,000,000 cubic feet per day, it is bound to reduce the overhead costs and cheapen the price of gas. That was envisaged when these works were erected years ago, and, after all, the price is a matter of negotiation, and I think that no insurmountable obstacle will arise in that direction. Eight housing estates exist around Stretford and Gorse Hill. I believe that up till now it has been the basis of the claim for this Order that the Trafford Park industrial estate desire gas. If that is so, why not erect these works at Trafford Park? There is any amount of space, and huge stretches of unoccupied land a long way from houses or habitation. We have heard a great deal in this House and in various conventions about the question of atmospheric pollution, and it is the duty of this Parliament to minimise that pollution, and to stamp it out if it is at all possible.
There are alternative sources of supply. If there had not been any alternative sources, the feeling behind our objection would not have been so strong. The Manchester Corporation—and I am not eulogising them—are very progressive and have established their electricity works at Barton, their sewage works at Davyhulme and their gas works at Partington. I am informed that Stretford take Manchester water and electricity and use their transport, and why, in the name of goodness, if these facilities are to hand, cannot they use their gas and save themselves the trouble of protesting, since this matter was discussed in this House a week last Monday, in the most vehement form? If they have been remiss in not attending this enquiry, why should we intensify these evils? If these facilities are to

hand—and I do not think it will be denied—it will be an accident conceived in Bedlam to go on with this Order when adequate and suitable sources are available.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. Crossley: It is delightful to find so many hon. Members opposite taking such a deep interest in my constituency. There are now two main objectors to the Order before the House. One is the Stretford Trades and Labour Council. They are a body who believe so strongly in democracy that they have not at any period during the objections to this Order even considered it worth while to let their Member know that they have objected at all. That is a fact worth putting upon record.
I have no complaint to make against the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) who raised this matter the other day. I know that he did his utmost to find me in the House, but I was on a visit from this House to the French Parliament at the time. I equally know that under the system of democracy in this House, in which a Member represents his whole constituency, all parties, for the time being between elections, it is a little surprising that they did not even consider it worth while to inform him what action they were taking in approaching a Member for another constituency.
The only other objection I have received regarding this Order was from the Owner Occupiers' Association. They wrote to me last March. I acknowledged the letter and communicated with the Town Clerk of Stretford, who replied that there was a Board of Trade inquiry then taking place, and that the Town Council had approved the plans in February and could offer no objection to this Order. It may be noted that the Town Council—true, it does not contain many members who belong to the party opposite—the elected representatives of the people of Stretford, had approved the Order. They said that they did not object to the Order for the extension. I then referred the letter of the town council to the Owner Occupiers' Association. That letter was delayed in the post for some time, but it reached their secretary on 10th May and contained an offer from me to go and see anything which that objecting body cared to show me. That offer was not taken up.


I, therefore, assumed that the objection had been dropped, and I was a little surprised when I found that it had been raised last Monday week. Only since that day had I received any private correspondence on the subject. I nevertheless considered it my duty to go out and see for myself, and it is what I saw and the conclusions I came to that I propose to state to the House.
Gas was first manufactured in Stretford in 1862, and the houses on both sides of the gas works have come there since that date. Let me say quite frankly that I entirely agree that it is not a very happy piece of town planning when you have two large residential districts with a gas works wedged in between them. In 1921 the Manchester Corporation acquired the gas works by a Bill from this House, in which a Clause was inserted stating that if the local authorities in the Stretford area wished to re-purchase the gas works they should be allowed to do so. A second Bill was put through Parliament in 1922 which enabled the Corporations of Stretford and Sale and the Urban District Council of Urmston, with one or two other constituent authorities, to re-purchase the gas works from Manchester. Those authorities are at present the controllers of the Stretford Gas Board, which supplies an area containing 60,000 of my constituents and 40,000 of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg). At the same time an adjoining field was bought with the obvious purpose of extending the gas works if it was felt desirable, and since that date the huge recent developments of Trafford Park plus the huge housing developments have caused a vastly increased demand for gas. Two alternative solutions have been put forward. One has been the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Ardwick and I am surprised that, as an ex-Lord Mayor of Manchester he should know so little.

Mr. J. Henderson: rose—

Hon. Members: He is not an ex-Lord Mayor of Manchester.

Mr. Crossley: I am surprised that he should know so little about the details of the gas supply of his own city.

Hon. Members: He is not an ex-Lord Mayor of Manchester.

Mr. Crossley: I am sorry; I have been reading Dod.

Mr. J. Henderson: I have never been privileged to be Lord Mayor of Manchester.

Mr. Crossley: I am sorry, but he will take it as a compliment, I am sure. At any rate, it is not true to say the gas could be supplied as more than a temporary remedy, because at most only a 20 per cent. increase of gas supply could be obtained. They make gas of 450 calorific content as against 500 calorific content at Stretford. The price of Manchester gas is considerably in excess of that manufactured by the Stretford Gas Board, and the average price of gas is 8.21 per unit as against 5·96 in Stretford. The other solution put forward has been a complete removal to a site to be acquired in Trafford Park, and although I agree that that would be most desirable from the point of view of town planning, I cannot help thinking that the large capital outlay would cause gas to be supplied to 60,000 of my constituents, and 40,000 of the hon. Member for Altrincham at a very enhanced price for many years to come, because this is not a company trading for profits. It pays its loan charges and it puts something into reserve sinking fund. It is a department of the three local authorities to which I referred.
In the new extension there will be no new gas holders. Unloading will take place in a covered building on to a rubber band, and will be conveyed under cover into the retorts where the gas will be made, and I cannot believe that there will be the same nuisances in the case of the new extension that probably exist in the case of the present works. The local representatives without a single dissentient passed the plan for the gas works, and I could not feel that I could, either by vote or voice, act against this extension. I went into the housing districts adjoining the existing gas works. I found a great dread of the new gas works, because they feared it might be similar to the annoyance from the existing gas works.
I found complaints of grit and dust, and fumes and noise, and, apart from the fumes, most of which came from a carbon bi-sulphide factory a mile away and not from the gas works at all, the


complaints were substantially justified. The dust and grit were undoubtedly most disagreeable. The noise on the Stretford track was jarring and harsh, and the noise from tipping at night carried on close to the houses, frequently without the tip being properly lowered, was unnecessary, and ought to be remedied. I also received a complaint from several householders of workmen shouting at night.
All these things ought undoubtedly to be remedied, and the gasworks authorities did say that when these extensions were completed they would turn their attention to the existing gas works. The complaints I heard were not against the extension but against the existing gasworks. I say most sincerely that the members of the Board ought to consider these matters at the earliest possible moment—and I am certain that they will do so. They have never been brought to their notice as a formal complaint, and as far as the local authorities in my constituency are concerned I know that they consist of people who give whole-hearted service to the public for the good of the public, and I believe that they will turn their attention to this matter in the near future. Having said this, I trust the House will agree with me that it is desirable in the interests of the price of gas to the consumers and the industries of Trafford Park, many of whom have been attracted there as against the south—a process which everyone will agree is desirable—that the Order should go through.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. Lawson: I heard the Debate on this matter the other night, and I was struck by the conditions which prevail. At the same time, I should not intervene in this Debate, as I represent another part of the country, but for the fact that Parliament as a whole has a responsibility in this matter. I received this morning a communication from the solicitors of the undertakers which I have read carefully. The statements are so bad that I must say a few words. They are on a par with what has been said by the hon. Member, and if the House fulfilled its proper functions in relation to a matter of this kind it would ask for the Adjournment of the Debate in order to have the matter reconsidered in view of these statements. Most Members have received a

plan which shows that all round the existing gas works there are 100,000 houses. The hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Trade said the other night that these people have built their houses there and went there after the gas works were built. There is nothing in that argument, because working people have to go where the houses are and in the vicinity of their work. This document from the solicitors says:
Within 300 yards of the new gas works there are 1,140 houses, all of which except 120 are also within 500 yards of the existing gas works, and only a dozen of these properties were unlet on 4th March, 1927, while tenants were moving in and out. This, it is submitted is the best evidence that there is no real objection to these works.
My reply to a statement of that kind is that working people have to take houses where they can get them. Would any hon. Member, if he could get a house anywhere else, move to within a few yards of a gas works of the description painted by the hon. Gentleman? Then the solicitors go on to give pretty much the same description that the hon. Gentleman has given. They say:
The objections were on the ground of nuisance from fumes, smell and grit, depreciation in value of the property in one or two cases, injury to paint work and the like.…A boundary wall has been erected at Thomas Street in order to keep in any ground dust made by road vehicles loading coke.
That is the kind of conditions under which people have to live, and this undertaking is going to extend this kind of thing and multiply the grievances.

Mr. Crossley: That is exactly what it is not going to do. It is going to adopt an entirely new and up-to-date process, and this extension will be entirely covered in. The old process is not covered in, and that is the whole difference between the two.

Mr. Lawson: It is going to extend its works—

Mr. Crossley: It it not going to extend the nuisance.

Mr. Lawson: —in the middle of a great population. I speak with experience of having lived in such crowded areas. I have lived in conditions of this description, and no Member with similar experience would consent to the passing of this Order. I desire to move "That the Debate be now adjourned" until proper consideration has been given to the facts stated by the hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. SPEAKER, being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the House.

12.9 a.m.

Mr. Burke: The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) is wrong in his notion that this matter concerns only Stretford. I think that he betrays the real attitude of the Stretford Council in making it purely parochial. I look upon it as a matter of real importance to the future of the town planning of the country. It is not merely a matter that concerns the people of Stretford, it concerns the health of the community throughout the whole of that area. There was a time when I was a citizen of Stretford and would have had the privilege of voting against the hon. Member. The hon. Member has supplied the reason. He tells us that the local trade council never thought it worth while to consult him.

Mr. Crossley: Not to consult me—to inform me.

Mr. Burke: That is even worse. The local trade council never thought it worth while to inform the hon. Member of what is going on in his own constituency. That suggests a lack of contact between tke hon. Member and his constituents. However, let us come to the point. Close to Stretford—which is a residential area and very largely a dormitory of Manchester—there is a big industrial area, one of the biggest in the country, which has been set aside as an industrial area and upon which a great deal of money has been spent. Many of the people who work in the industrial area of Trafford Park have to live close to it. Across the border from Stretford are the large works of Metropolitan-Vickers which employ 15,000 people, and many of those people have to live close to the gasworks in question. I suggest that it rests with Members of the House, and not merely of Stretford alone, to look after the health of those people. The hon. Member suggested that Manchester could not cope with this demand and that instead of having gas supplied to Stretford by the Manchester Corporation, Stretford must have a little gasworks of its own. That suggestion is all against the tendency of modern industrialisation. We are getting past the time when each local authority is trying to do its own little

job, in its own little way. The tendency is towards bigger plants and amalgamation of authorities and co-ordination. Stretford, all along, has been parochial in its outlook.
The Manchester Gasworks can turn out 36,000,000 cubic feet of gas per day. [HON. MEMBERS: "More expensively."] I will deal with that point later. According to the statement which I received this morning the present sale from the Stretford Gasworks is about 1,126,088,000 cubic feet per year, as something like 4,000,000 per day. At the most, they say, the safe capacity for making gas would be 8,250,000 cubic feet per day and Manchester can give them 3,250,000 cubic feet per day over and above the highest figure they can safely make. It seems a waste of energy and of industrial power to have this works when there is a large undertaking close by which can supply the demand. The question of the change of calorific value is a mere matter of minor adjustment and, as to price, while it is true that Manchester gas is clearer than Stretford gas at the moment, that, again, is a matter for negotiation between the local authorities. In any case, I submit that the interest of the health of the people of Stretford should come first. A healthy community is a hale community and a hale community is a holy community. The words are one in etymology and one in meoning. The hon. Member for Stretford ought not to come here to ask for the perpetuation of this vandalism for the sake of one-sixteenth of a penny per thousand cubic feet in the price of gas.

12.15 a.m.

Sir Joseph Nall: The remarks of the last speaker and of the hon. Member for the Ardwick division of Manchester (Mr. J. Henderson) seemed almost to suggest that Manchester was instigating this fuss in order to get hold of the Stretford gaworks. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) told the House what happened in 1921 and 1922 when Manchester endeavoured to acquire these works. The matter was then gone into very thoroughly upstairs on two Bills, and, in the end, Stretford and the adjacent authorities formed this joint board and took over this undertaking for themselves. I am sure the hon. Member for Ardwick does not wish to give the impression that Man-


chester is now trying to make this Order an excuse for going in again and trying to get what it failed to get in 1921. The fact remains that this smaller undertaking having specialised in commercial gas for industrial purposes is serving a useful purpose to a large number of important industrial undertakings. It is supplying gas at very much below the ordinary gasworks price. Therefore it is of great importance to the employers and industrialists concerned that this supply should be maintained at the present prices or less. Incidentally, this is an interesting example of the fact that the smaller undertakings can often be run more cheaply and economically than the large ones. That illustrates a mistake which is often made in discussing these matters. It is not always the biggest undertaking that is the most economical.
In this case my immediate interest is in the large number of working-class people for whom more employment is being found in that district. That, to a certain extent, is due to the fact that this very cheap gas power is available for certain industrial processes, and I should be sorry to see that industrial development retarded in any way by throwing out this Order and disturbing the development which is going on now. It is a fact that the Stretford undertaking will shortly be unable to meet its commitments and meet the demand made upon it unless it is able to proceed with this modernisation and extension of its plant. I have heard a great dealt about this matter locally, and I can confirm what the hon. Member for Stretford has said. If the Stretford board goes on with this modernisation a great deal of the cause of complaint which has arisen in recent months will disappear. It is no good coming to the House and saying: "Here is something which is causing complaint and is very bad. But we will not allow the owners to improve it. We will make 1 hem go on as they are going." That is a policy of despair which can do nobody any good. The question of a local supply and a supply from Manchester has been gone into in this House in the past and ought not to be re-opened. I am sure the Manchester city authority does not wish it to be re-opened on this Order. I understand that an inspector of the department has gone thoroughly into the matter, and the result is that the Board of Trade have presented this Order

to the House. This is a local government undertaking and not a company for making profit, and it is now abundantly clear that the grievances which have caused this obstruction can only be remedied by allowing this new plant to be erected.

12.19 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): When this matter was previously before the House, I acceded to the request of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) and moved the Adjournment of the Debate on the Order, but I took care to say that I did so without prejudice to the position of the Board of Trade on the question. That was a polite way of saying that the speeches which had been made had not in any way shaken the arguments, adduced by me, in favour of the Order. Since then, the House has had the advantage of hearing the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) and of my hon. Friend the Member for the Hulme division of Manchester (Sir J. Nall), who have filled up the gaps in the history of the matter which I presented—perhaps not in sufficient detail—the other night.
There are in this case three question to which the House should address itself. First of all, is a larger supply of gas required in this particular area in the interests of the people who live there, whether they be domestic consumers or industrial users? I do not think there can be any doubt that the answer to that first question must be emphatically in the affirmative. I will not weary the House with the figures.
I think enough has already been said to show that this particular area will require in the near future a largely increased supply of gas; and the researches which I have made during the last ten days have gone to show that, if this Order does not go through, certain plants will have to shut down in the not very far-distant future, and certain other plants which are being constructed will not be able to start. Therefore, I think we may take it that an increased supply of gas is required in this area, and I am certain that the hon. Member who first objected to the Order will not deny that proposition.
The second question we have to consider is whether that supply of gas can


be obtained more cheaply, more efficiently or with less detriment to local amenities from outside the particular area. Again, I think enough has been said, particularly by the last speaker, to show, first, that to get a supply of gas from Manchester to this area would be only a temporary expedient, because I do not imagine that Manchester is going to stand still any more than Stretford, and secondly, in spite of what the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) said, I am advised that there are substantial difficulties involved in a difference of calorific value, although I agree that that is a minor point compared with the main one. We hope that Partington will find a full market for its gas in the near future, and it may indeed want to extend itself.
The third question is: What effect will the extension of the present source of supply, as proposed in this Order, have on the living conditions of the people who live round it? I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr Lawson) that that is something to which we must have regard. My position in recommending the House to pass this Order is made singularly easy by the fact that there is no doubt whatever that the construction of the extension to this gasworks, so far from increasing the nuisances about which there have been well-founded complaints, is actually going to do a great deal to mitigate, if not to remove, them. It is intended to do away with what is known as the telpher system of conveying coke and coal on overhead trolleys, and to substitute rubber belts and enclosed gangways to convey coal from the siding; this, I am advised, will have the effect of very substantially reducing the nuisances of which the local residents have complained. Therefore, I think in the circumstances it is not necessary for me to say any more or to go into the question of whether the matter should have been represented earlier or should have been represented to the local Member of Parliament. It so happens that in this case the industrial necessities of the area and the convenience of the inhabitants seem to go side by side. For these reasons, I hope the House will pass this Order.

12.24 a.m.

Mr. Paling: If hon. Members opposite ever want to find an excuse for doing something, they always say that if it is

not done, it will stop progress in building works, stop people from getting work, and so on. I have not heard sufficient evidence of that to-night. Most of the evidence given by the hon. Member who represents the division admits that all the complaints that have been made by these people are justified up to the hilt.

Mr. Crossley: Not as regards the extension.

Mr. Paling: No, the complaints have been with regard to the present gas-works, as to the dirt and all the rest of it. The hon. Member admits that it has been badly planned, that it ought not to be there and that there is a site somewhere in the neighbourhood to which it would be better removed. His objection to removal is that it would be expensive.

Mr. Crossley: Suppose such a complete transference did take place. It would inevitably involve large capital expenditure, and that would mean enhanced prices for gas to some 100,000 consumers. While in theory I should like to see such a transference, in practice it is quite impossible.

Mr. Paling: I said that I thought the hon. Member had admitted that there was a better site, but that it would mean increased outlay. I grant that, but if it would be costly to move the present works it would be infinitely more costly to shift them at some future time, after the extension has been built. Which is the wiser course? To shift now, or in the future, after the extension has been made? If the extension is made now the people there will be subjected to this nuisance for the rest of their lives. It would be cheaper to shift the works now, even though it might involve increasing the price of gas, while there is the opportunity to do it, and thus remove this nuisance for ever. I am surprised that the hon. Member has not taken up that point of view on behalf of his constituents rather more strongly than he has done. If this nuisance is to be remedied, now is the time to do it.

12.28 a.m.

Mr. Benn: Will the Minister tell us whether he has made any inquiries of the Manchester City Council as to whether this service could be supplied by them, in order that what is recognised as a great nuisance and a danger to the health of


those in the neighbourhood could be dealt with?

Captain Wallace: I can speak again only by the leave of the House. I have not written to the Manchester City Council myself, but my Department have made inquiries, and I think that the question has been very effectively answered by the hon. Member above the gangway opposite.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Member above the gangway did not really answer that question at all. I have the great honour to be a representative of one of the divisions of the City of Manchester and it is proper to ask the Minister whether he has consulted that very large and progressive city, which has shown in connection with

its gasworks a desire to develop along town planning lines. Have the Manchester City Council been asked whether they would render this service in order to do away with what everyone, including the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley), recognizes to be a danger to public health.

Question put,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Stretford and District Gas Board, which was presented on the 24th day of May and published, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 52.

Division No. 275.]
AYES.
[12.28 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Furness, S. N.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Goldie, N. B.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Apsley, Lord
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Patrick, C. M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Grimston, R. V.
Petherick, M.


Balniel, Lord
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Procter, Major H. A.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hannah, I. C.
Radford, E. A.


Bernays, R. H.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Ramsbotham, H.


Bossom, A. C.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rankin, Sir R.


Boulton, W. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hepworth, J.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Higgs, W. F.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Butcher, H. W.
Holdsworth, H.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Holmes, J. S.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cary, R. A.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Channon, H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Salt, E. W.


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Savery, Sir Servington


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Joel, D. J. B.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Colman, N. C. D.
Kimball, L.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Critchley, A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Touche, G. C.


Cross, R. H.
Leckie, J. A.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Levy, T.
Turton, F. H.


De Chair, S. S.
Liddall, W. S.
Wakefield, W. W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Drewe, C.
Lyons, A. M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
McKie, J. H.
Watt, G. S. H.


Duggan, H. J.
Maitland, A.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Eastwood, J. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Emery, J. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wragg, H.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Fleming, E. L.
Morgan, R. H.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Foot, D. M.
Munro, P.



Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Nall, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Sir Edward Grigg and Mr. Crossley




NOES.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Price, M. P.


Barr, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Burke, W. A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Rowson, G.


Cape, T.
Jagger, J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cocks, F. S.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Daggar, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sorensen, R. W.


Dalton, H.
John, W.
Stephen, C.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dobbie, W.
Kirby, B. V.
Tinker, J. J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lawson, J. J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Ede, J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gallacher, W.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Marshall, F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R.
Mathers, G.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and Mr. Ellis Smith.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.



Groves, T. E.
Paling, W.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Conway Gas Company, which was presented on the 8th day of June and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Urban District Council of Llandudno, which was presented on the 9th day of June and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to

1934, on the application of the Marlborough Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 9th day of June and published, be approved."—[Captain Wallace.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-two Minutes before One o'Clock, a.m.